Yes strategy is the real guts of the game. I only win tactically against players who are not as strong with their tactical knowledge. The real crux of my wins comes from long drawn out strategic games where my opponent may have made just one simple positional move that alllows me to build up a winning attack.
OTB Chess: Strategy > Tactics?
Sort:
under 2000 rating it prob is 99% tactics. Once you get above that alot of other stuff starts to come into play more.
Most people under 2000 will make a tactical blunder at some point that tips the game.
AtahanT wrote:
...Is it ALOT more strategy involved in 1 hour OTB chess then my 15min internet chess sessions or do you think that tactics are of huge importance for slow OTB games aswell? ...
Yes and yes. I haven't played any games on this site (yet) for two reasons. 1 - Online chess is great for in-depth study but I'm doing plenty of that offline. 2 - It's hard for me to find time for a good 30 - 60 minute live game. I don't really want to play anything faster because at this point in my studies I want more time to analyse positions. On the other hand, tactics are still important in longer games because you need to be able to carry out whatever plan you have.
Nope, it's pretty much all tactics. OTB in almost every game at some point someone is going to hang a piece or pawn to a simple combination. (U2000, which is everyone posting on this thread). Winning the game requires you to see that combo.
Not every game under 2000 is decided by a blunder or missed tactical opportunity. However you need to know tactics not only to win using them but to avoid being caught into a trap.
Chess is like a pyramid where you need a foundation and tactics is a critical part of such a understanding. The next step is probably endings. Since you need to know if an ending is good or bad in making decisions whether to enter such endings. Also positional understanding in necessary as tactics often come from a better position ( the axiom exchanging one plus of from another larger one). Also as you get up to 1800-2000 basic opening understandings are necessary since it will determine what type of positions you will enter and know.
You should continue to study tactics all along the way but perhaps looking at some middle game books may help some as well if you feel that that is something you need help with.
Apr 22, 2009
0
#7
AtahanT - I looked through some of your games and it seems to me that, unless you meant to hang your knight which is still questionable, of the games i saw, you definately won/lost because of tactics, not strategy.
MetalK wrote:
AtahanT - I looked through some of your games and it seems to me that, unless you meant to hang your knight which is still questionable, of the games i saw, you definately won/lost because of tactics, not strategy.
Yes, online I always lose to tactical blows. OTB I don't generally. I don't care about being good at fast games on the internet, that is why I'm wondering if I should study tactics excessively to get better at long OTB games or if the key is strategy. I don't hang pieces in OTB play, not even to longer exchange combinations. I lose because I make mistakes of the kind:
-Wrong estimate of who's attack is going to be faster. Mine or my opponents.
-When to sacrifice a piece on the other side of the board to continue an attack on the other side to mate a king
-When to exchange what piece depending on where and why in the game
These are typical reasons I lose in long OTB games. That is strategy isn't it? Me and my friend are definately not 2000+ rating players. I don't even have a rating but it doesn't mean that I lose to tactical blows. I don't. I am new to the game though, I haven't played years like many here but only months so I need guidance: Should I really be concentrating on solving 50 tactical puzzles every day to get better at my long timed OTB chess or should I really buy a good strategy book and start cracking?
aansel wrote:
Not every game under 2000 is decided by a blunder or missed tactical opportunity. However you need to know tactics not only to win using them but to avoid being caught into a trap.
Chess is like a pyramid where you need a foundation and tactics is a critical part of such a understanding. The next step is probably endings. Since you need to know if an ending is good or bad in making decisions whether to enter such endings. Also positional understanding in necessary as tactics often come from a better position ( the axiom exchanging one plus of from another larger one). Also as you get up to 1800-2000 basic opening understandings are necessary since it will determine what type of positions you will enter and know.
You should continue to study tactics all along the way but perhaps looking at some middle game books may help some as well if you feel that that is something you need help with.
Ok.
-I know enough tactics to see dangers mostly unless it is a really hidden one with some out of the blue sac. Everything basic I do know about. From double checks to removing defenders to overloaded pieces.
-I know all basic endings and how to judge if it is a favorable one for me or not, that's covered mostly.
-I know alot of opening theory for my rating. I have one complete opening set for white and one for black that I always play. I always end up in similar and for me known positions when middle game starts. I'm always the last one to go out of book. That's covered aswell.
Middle game. This I do not seem to have covered. What book would you say I need?
AnthonyCG wrote:
I don't agree about U2000 exactly. Most mistakes will be tactical, but there are definetly 1600s out there that could carry out a positional plan to victory.
Yes, I think this is the problem. Eventhough the last part of the defeat is by a tactical blow it doesn't mean that the reason it occured is because of lacking understanding in tactics. Mostly I can see a tactical combo coming my way that has been made possible because of some, then, unrelated move 10 moves ago (= strategic/positional mistake). That must count as a strategic loss and not a tactical one. I see the tactical blow but I can't avoid it because of a strategic mistake earlier in the game.
dlordmagic wrote:
Yes strategy is the real guts of the game. I only win tactically against players who are not as strong with their tactical knowledge. The real crux of my wins comes from long drawn out strategic games where my opponent may have made just one simple positional move that alllows me to build up a winning attack.
Recommend any good strategy books for me?
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
AtahanT wrote:
...Is it ALOT more strategy involved in 1 hour OTB chess then my 15min internet chess sessions or do you think that tactics are of huge importance for slow OTB games aswell? ...
Yes and yes. I haven't played any games on this site (yet) for two reasons. 1 - Online chess is great for in-depth study but I'm doing plenty of that offline. 2 - It's hard for me to find time for a good 30 - 60 minute live game. I don't really want to play anything faster because at this point in my studies I want more time to analyse positions. On the other hand, tactics are still important in longer games because you need to be able to carry out whatever plan you have.
Yeah same here. I only use online games to practice my tactical vision and to repeat my opening rep and have some fast fun.
AtahanT> do you think that tactics are of huge importance for slow OTB games aswell?
"Chess is 99% tactics." comes from Richard Teichmann and has been re-affirmed by Reuben Fine, Susan Polgar, etc..-with the caveat that maybe it's only 95% tactics these days, but in any event they're important at all levels.
- You can play 30 reasonable moves, miss one tactic, and lose.
- Calculating tactics (threats) often takes up the bulk of one's thinking time.
AtahanT> Me and my friend are definately not 2000+ rating players... I rarely lose to some tactical blow, like a discovered check or a double attack sac.
You say in online games you hang pieces but in OTB games you rarely lose to some tactical blow. That could mean both you and your opponent are overlooking them. It would be instructive to scan your last three OTB games with a chess engine to see what you missed. If you post them here we could help with that.
Apr 22, 2009
0
#14
One of the biggest caveats to chess being 95% tactics is that in order for those tactics to materialize you have to know the strategies necessary to reach good positions. Opening theory, for example, while containing many tactics, also relies heavily on strategy (control the center, king safety, etc). So while tactics often seem to decide a matter, it is the strategies employed prior to the tactic that allowed the tactic to happen.
likesforests wrote:
AtahanT> do you think that tactics are of huge importance for slow OTB games aswell?
"Chess is 99% tactics." comes from Richard Teichmann and has been re-affirmed by Reuben Fine, Susan Polgar, etc..-with the caveat that maybe it's only 95% tactics these days, but in any event they're important at all levels.
You can play 30 reasonable moves, miss one tactic, and lose. Calculating tactics (threats) often takes up the bulk of one's thinking time.AtahanT> Me and my friend are definately not 2000+ rating players... I rarely lose to some tactical blow, like a discovered check or a double attack sac.
You say in online games you hang pieces but in OTB games you rarely lose to some tactical blow. That could mean both you and your opponent are overlooking them. It would be instructive to scan your last three OTB games with a chess engine to see what you missed. If you post them here we could help with that.
Good point. We might miss it both, maybe sometimes. He is a 1700 club player and I'm unrated but I do snag a win every third time from him. I will record my next few games and ask for advice again and also let the engine check for missed tactical opportunities.
Also I would like to point out that when I say I don't lose to tactical blows it means that I can see the blow coming but I can't stop it because of a strategical mistake few moves back. Because of that mistake I can't avoid material loss eventhough I can see that blow coming. Something needs to go mostly.
Practicality wrote:
So while tactics often seem to decide a matter, it is the strategies employed prior to the tactic that allowed the tactic to happen.
Yes, I think so too. How would I improve my mid game strategy? My opening strategy is good enough I think.
AtahanT wrote:
dlordmagic wrote:
Yes strategy is the real guts of the game. I only win tactically against players who are not as strong with their tactical knowledge. The real crux of my wins comes from long drawn out strategic games where my opponent may have made just one simple positional move that alllows me to build up a winning attack.
Recommend any good strategy books for me?
I've been working with Silman's
"The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions Into Chess Mastery" and "The Reassess Your Chess Workbook" as well as Seirawan's "Winning Chess Strategies". All three are helping me a great deal with strategy in particular but also some with tactics. I've set aside Silman's books to concentrate on Seirawan's because Seirawan's is a lighter read and moves faster. His examples usually don't go into the detail and/or depth that Silman's do but are still very informative and thought provoking. You wouldn't go wrong with any of them.
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
AtahanT wrote:
dlordmagic wrote:
Yes strategy is the real guts of the game. I only win tactically against players who are not as strong with their tactical knowledge. The real crux of my wins comes from long drawn out strategic games where my opponent may have made just one simple positional move that alllows me to build up a winning attack.
Recommend any good strategy books for me?
I've been working with Silman's
"The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions Into Chess Mastery" and "The Reassess Your Chess Workbook" as well as Seirawan's "Winning Chess Strategies". All three are helping me a great deal with strategy in particular but also some with tactics. I've set aside Silman's books to concentrate on Seirawan's because Seirawan's is a lighter read and moves faster. His examples usually don't go into the detail and/or depth that Silman's do but are still very informative and thought provoking. You wouldn't go wrong with any of them.
I am working through the Silman book, as well as "How to Reassess Your Chess" and "The Complete Endgame Course" also by Silman, and find them to be very good.
Practicality> the biggest caveats to chess being 95% tactics is that in order for those tactics to materialize you have to know the strategies necessary to reach good positions.
Actually, tactics can and do materialize out of thin air. This is why a tactically strong but strategically weak players go further than strategically strong but tactically weak players. Although of course the ideal is to eventually study both!
Here's a 10-minute game I played yesterday against a 1400 opponent.
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 e5 5. Bg2 d5?
Book. 5...d5 is a common opening error. I calculate a tactical refutation. 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Nxe5! Nxc3 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. dxc3 Qxd1+ 10. Kxd1 Bb7
11. Kc2 Bd6
My first purely strategic move. Instead of moving my knight, I decide my king should vacate the open d-file, perhaps allowing my rook to go there. Was this one strategic move the one that gave me a good, winning position? 
12.Nc4 Be7
A fork, threatening Nxd6+ and Na5. Granted, a strategist would also find Nc4 because it blockades the doubled c-pawns.
13.Na5 Rb8??
Carrying out the unstopped tactical threat. I missed 13...Ba6 in my calculations.
14.Bf4! Rd8
A tactical move winning a piece and the game.
likesforests wrote:
Practicality> the biggest caveats to chess being 95% tactics is that in order for those tactics to materialize you have to know the strategies necessary to reach good positions.
Actually, tactics can and do materialize out of thin air. This is why a tactically strong but strategically weak players go further than strategically strong but tactically weak players. Although of course the ideal is to eventually study both!
Here's a 10-minute game I played yesterday against a 1400 opponent.
1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 e5 5. Bg2 d5?
Book. 5...d5 is a common opening error. I calculate a tactical refutation. 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Nxe5! Nxc3 8. Bxc6+ bxc6 9. dxc3 Qxd1+ 10. Kxd1 Bb7
11. Kc2 Bd6
My first purely strategic move. Instead of moving my knight, I decide my king should vacate the open d-file, perhaps allowing my rook to go there. Was this one strategic move the one that gave me a good, winning position?
12.Nc4 Be7
A fork, threatening Nxd6+ and Na5. Granted, a strategist would also find Nc4 because it blockades the doubled c-pawns.
13.Na5 Rb8??
Carrying out the unstopped tactical threat. I missed 13...Ba6 in my calculations.
14.Bf4! Rd8
A tactical move winning a piece and the game.
But your tactics are made possible because of his huge strategical mistakes. He rips open the centre without having enough development nor a safe king. Yes, white does need to know how to set up forks and deflect defenders but these moves are only possible because of the strategical errors of black.
This means that someone that has very good strategical knowlege will nullify your huge tactical knowlege of ungodly tactical combos and sacrifices because you will never have the chance to perform them.
So the question is: Where/when is it time to put more effort into strategy in ones chess development instead of going deeper into tactics after you get the stanard tactical stuff down.
Lately I have been trying to play alot of OTB chess with a friend of mine and when I lose in OTB it is almost always because of a strategic error, big or small. I rarely lose to some tactical blow, like a discovered check or a double attack sac. Is this normal? Is it ALOT more strategy involved in 1 hour OTB chess then my 15min internet chess sessions or do you think that tactics are of huge importance for slow OTB games aswell? You know what they say "99% of chess is tactics" but I'm beginning to wonder if that only goes for blitz games.