People over-rating the importance of chess tactics?

I get the point that tactics aren't everything, but they're still more important to a sub-title player than, well, anything else.  By far.  MOST of my games are still decided by tactical oversights or opportunities.

It's not about what's more important, if you wan't to grow as a chessplayer and get a grasp of the game, you need to study every aspect.

 I agree wholly, with this proviso: To get practical results in limited time, not everything is equal.

Personally, I enjoy finding out about chess even if the time spent ratio to games won isn't nearly ideal.

Actually, it's not that simple.  Tactics may be raw calculation for computers but for humans it's at least as much pattern recognition. 

I'm starting to learn the hard way that pattern recognition is more important to tactics in my games than raw calculation.   My calculation is not too bad (usually) but my pattern recognition is very weak and as a result I'm way too slow.  Even in turn based chess it's easy to overlook a great tactic because the payoff is too many ply down the road.  I think C.J.S. Purdy once wrote  "thinking is no good at all, you must SEE."  

First off, I am a rank beginner, so I don't know my a** from my elbow.

But I tend to take a more holistic approach to chess. Yes, tactics are, from what everyone says, the bedrock of a good chess game. So I practice tactics a lot.

But you have to study openings, engames, and strategy too. Quite frankly, I would get bored just focusing on one aspect of the game alone.

 Missing a backspace key?

Anyway. The thread creator speaks the truth. However, do not lose sight, move on completely to strategy and stop doing tactics full stop. Tactics must be practiced until the end of your chess career. It's no good learning the positional techniques but forgetting those brilliant patterns and combinations.

You are completely right; I agree with you.

"All our losses can be traced to tactical slips rather than strategical incompetency."

I, for one, have lost many games due to strategic incompetence. Games where I was squeezed to death. Games where I was too blocked up to do anything effective. Games where I was in a positional bind I could never get out of. Games where I won material, like an exchange, only to lose 30 moves later because I didn't understand that in that position, a bishop was as good as a rook. Games where I gained the "advantage" of the two bishops only to discover that the position couldn't be opened and I was going to lose to the two knights--I could go on and on.

Tactics may not be everything in chess, but they certainly are REALLY important. I once heard that Tal used to watch a show with tactics for A class players on the Russian TV.

Tal is a good case in point. Often he would go into extremely complicated combinative lines without calculating all the possibilities. His superb instincts would tell him when he entered such a line that he would probably succeed. It was his grasp of position that allowed him to look beyond material to create a position where material sacrifices were going to be rewarded.

Well here's another patzers opinion :).  Value it as you wish.

Tactics are extremely important, there's no denying that.  However, at a certain point (many GM's will say that point is Master) neither side misses many significant tactical shots.  Of course, tactics are the foundation of calculation, and without calculation positional play is impossible.  This will lead the logical reader to notice that 'tactical' and 'positional' play is closely linked. 

Using this truth as a base, should 'class level' players study tactics?  Of course!

Should masters study tactics?  Naturally!  Even though the reward may not show up in the form of less oversights.

And so my conclusion to this aspect of the conversation is that all players should study tactics, the 'weaker' you are, the more you should focus on tactics. 

But what about stronger players?  I've already indicated that something other than tactics should be studied, and this will go uncontested by most experienced players.  So what else should be studied?

It is my belief that all study should be interrelated, as it is during a game.

Someone who decides to pick up a book on the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez, for example, should memorize the lines, study the various traps, understand the positional intricacies, learn how to create a plan that applies to those positions, study games played by masters in this particular line, and even study the common endgames!  It may be hard to believe that a particular opening will lead to a particular endgame but as you study the line you'll quickly realize that this does happen! 

The point of all this is not to beat your opponent by 'memory' using less than 2 minutes to make 40 moves (which will happen on occasion), but rather, to understand the 'correct' way to play your opening so well that any deviation can be punished effectively.

For any of this to work, however, you do need decent calculation ability, and a respectable understanding of the positional aspects of chess.  If you can't explain what a 'backwards' pawn is, or name some of the advantages of doubled pawns in certain positions, you should probably pick up 'My System' by Nimzovich or 'How To Reasess Your Chess' by Silman before you start beating the intricacies of opening theory and endgame play to death.

But most importantly keep this in mind: Second to tactics, knowing how to play positions is the single most important aspect of chess, obsession with openings won't help.

Just my 3 cents :D

-matt

While balance is required, I believe it is hard to over rate tactics.

Giantloser - sorry, you can't master the tactics in 4 days, even learning the themes will take more. You can say "I mastered" when you see the tactics on the board, not on some tactics server, when you win games due to better tactics. Even GMs sometimes don't see it, you master it all your chess life.

Lol 'mastered tactics' ... I wonder why anyone has a higher rating than 1752 :P.

Tactics and strategy merge as one tries to checkmate the opposing king.

 Do you mean by having the opponent resign because they think checkmate is inevitable?

 Well what did you mean in simple terms?

actually it is impossible to win without ever directly attacking the enemy king... you have to checkmate to win unless your opponent dies in which case I guess it would be considered a resignation and you would indeed win without ever having attacked the enemy king, as for that happening in a lot of games I dont think so.

Your opponents death is the only way he can resign? Say whaaaat?