People who know tactics are worse than people who don't know tactics???

In this blog post, I analyzed the game Sepulveda vs. Prieto:

https://www.chess.com/blog/Robert_New_Alekhine/the-art-of-the-kings-gambit

It's a beautiful game, and I recommend that you study it. 

The critical position happened here:

The funny thing is, people who don't know tactics will not play g2+. 

People who know some tactics will play g2+

So that means that knowing tactics is worse than NOT knowing tactics??

Since you offer no analysis of what happens in any alternatives to g2+, you are not entitled to your conclusion that some knowledge of tactics is worse than no knowledge. 

With so little attention to detail, I predict that few people will follow the link to get a further helping.

Me and robert have privately studied the alternitive (Me for hours, him too I think) and we have came to the conclusion that white is slightly better, black must be careful, but white is not much better.

If I were to look ahead before the attack, I would have know something bad would happen if I played g2+, so I, a person who knows tactics, would not play g2+.

James, you know tactics "well".

Those who know tactisc, but badly, would play g2+.

Those who haven't studied tactics AT ALL would play the correct move, Qxg4

Most people would fall for g2+ I think

People who play moves without calculating are worse than people who check their moves with calculation.

If the opening requires a lot of calculation, then it's bad for blitz.

People who have no idea what a tactic is wouldn't even consider g2+, and so would play the best move. 

I agree that tactics leave people at a significant disadvantage. The worst two things in the world are knowledge and effort.

Fortunately, you seem to be in the clear.

Thanks for the compliment. 

Cool game.

Though, I wouldn't say that "knowing tactics" is the problem here. The problem is not looking far enough ahead.

Someone only looking 1-2 moves ahead would probably play the g2 blunder. Though, someone looking 3-4 moves ahead wouldn't make that mistake at all.

So, maybe the better way to say it is, "if you see a tactic that looks good, stop and look further. See if it pays off or not."

*Thumbs up*

Another way to say it: No knowledge is better than incomplete knowledge. 

Yes.

No. Those who haven't studied tactics at all would play something like:

...nf6, blundering away their queen for no compensation.

Then you'd say, "Didn't you see your hanging queen?"

And they'd say, "No. I don't study tactics. I was just trying to develop my pieces." :P

To be serious for a moment, Black's problem was poor evaluation not poor analysis.

To be not so serious for a moment, Black's problem was poor evaluation due to poor analysis... :P

lol this has very little to do with tactics and a lot to do with deep calculation. It took the white player many moves to generate his attack and win, and that was only one variation. In a blitz game, there's no way a mortal would be able to calculate this, and even a master who is very good at tactics would probably play g2+, as it looks reasonable, and black seems to be able to hold on for a while (as in the game). Does that mean he hasn't studied tactics well enough? No, it's just that the position is too complicated.

Playing tactics when you get a true advantage is healthy. Playing tactics for tactics sake is not. Although in 1 min it will make them think and run down their clock.  :)

This is the 'model' game from John Shaw's "King's Gambit" opening guidebook, and this book won some sort of award during the year it was published. I think this is his recommended "Quaade" line that it is first and best option.

I've played this line as white before in blitz and it tends to work out favorably if black goes down this route - at my rating I've never encountered anyone prepared for it; they usually make a blunder even before getting the chance to queen their pawn.