Like Anna Rudolf and Sopiko Guramishvili
Question about the Queen's Gambit
Sort:
Jan 26, 2025
0
#43
borovicka75 wrote:
Yes, strategy and tactics go hand in hand.
Yes. Very much agreed.
But I discovered that its a common mistake to separate them too much.
To discuss that idea further:
Are most moves in chess games positional or tactical or tactical-positional?
If I had to guess - I'd say positional.
Another way to put it:
You've got a position in front of you.
Its your move.
Are there any checks available for either side?
What about captures? How about mate threats?
How about threats on the queens and rooks and other pieces?
Are there any plays like forks and pins and skewers?
Are there pawn-promotion factors ?
----------------------------------------
So often the answer to all these questions - on so Many moves ...
is No.
But one must move. What to do?
The game is designed to produce unfamiliar and unexpected and novel situations and one must figure out a reasonable move.
Can you just plug variables into a formula to obtain your good move or better - Best move?
The point is ... No. Very much of the time.
Tactics usually win games. Tactics flow from your position relative to your opponent's position.
However, a positional player may be less eager to indulge in tactics, which can lead to too much simplification, than an overtly tactical player, who, if the tactics are leading to simplification, might get drawn into complicating the position more and more and eventually reach a losing position. The best course is usually positional play and regrouping/reorganising at some point. That's the mark of a stronger player, in general.
Jan 26, 2025
0
#45
Good players do both tactics and positional play. Well.
And point stands:
Games come to points where there's no formula-tactics ...
and players have to figure out a good enough move.
And that's maybe where the titled players become titled.
--------------------
try something more tangible.
Be3 versus Bf4.
The experienced player would know more about the nuances of comparing those two moves.
And the 'ins and outs' of each. (vicissitudes)
Is it always going to be obvious which one?
No.
Could it be that both are 'good' in many positions?
Many does not mean 'all'.
-----------------------
In some - neither. Or Bg5 is 'the move'.
How about Bd2? Ugh.
But it does come in.
Could that be played positionally and be a good move as opposed to breaking a pin of a c3 knight or blocking a check?
Maybe. Maybe the plan is to get the bish to c3 and hit the center and the Kside.
Maybe its just to get the rook to d1 or c1 or even e1.
Bd2. You don't see it much early on in the Queen's gambit.
But 'opening rules' are made to be broken!
Bg5 is usually the big move.
Could you be playing Bf4 in the QG and its 'not a London'?
Bf4 is often played instead to 'mess black up'. I think that often works. Well.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#46
Every move includes tactics. Because just not to blunder your piece is tactics too.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#47
playerafar wrote:
JayThe10th wrote:
playerafar wrote:
borovicka75 wrote:
So called bishop pair is strong in positions, when both bishop can work on several diagonals, can attack some pawns or pieces in opponents camp or prevent opponent pieces from being active. Such positions sre mostly those with no or few pawns in the center. In positions with blocked center bishop pair is not so usefull. In early phase of queens gambit declined center is closed, so threat of eliminating Knight f6 defending pawn d5 by bishop can definitely be more important that bishop pair. All depend on concrete calculation.
I agree with that. I have to agree.
Black's knight at f6 is a very big piece in chess openings.
So is White's knight at f3.
So much so that in good play either side often gives up their c-bishop for the other side's g-knight.
I actually prefer queen-bishop. And King-knight. For the terminology.
Black's queen bishop is often called (black's) lightsquare bishop.
And white's queen-bishop often referred to as his darksquare bishop.
Advantage of those terms: no 'subscribing' to notation 'orthodoxy' there.
--------------------
Regarding white playing Bxf6 in the Queen's Gambit ...
and 'concrete calculation' ...
'calculation' usually refers to tactics. Not positional play.
So if there's little or 'tactics' arising following Bxf6 with black recapturing with either his Queen or his darksquare bishop .... then there may be 'nothing to calculate). For some moves after that.
There's also white recapturing with his g-pawn.
That can be much more Loaded!
Well, calculation can also be used for positional play. Generally, you need to 'calculate' lines even in a less tactical position and check imbalances regularly to make sure your position is strong and to not cause weaknesses in the position. This can require lots of thought and calculation to find the best line in any given position.
Would you agree that positional play is much harder to get right than tactical play - which can also be very hard?
Definitely, it even affects me. I sometimes find the tactical idea to puzzles, but I can never find the last positionally thought move. Tis is one of my weaknesses.
Jan 27, 2025
0
#48
JayThe10th wrote:
playerafar wrote:
JayThe10th wrote:
playerafar wrote:
borovicka75 wrote:
So called bishop pair is strong in positions, when both bishop can work on several diagonals, can attack some pawns or pieces in opponents camp or prevent opponent pieces from being active. Such positions sre mostly those with no or few pawns in the center. In positions with blocked center bishop pair is not so usefull. In early phase of queens gambit declined center is closed, so threat of eliminating Knight f6 defending pawn d5 by bishop can definitely be more important that bishop pair. All depend on concrete calculation.
I agree with that. I have to agree.
Black's knight at f6 is a very big piece in chess openings.
So is White's knight at f3.
So much so that in good play either side often gives up their c-bishop for the other side's g-knight.
I actually prefer queen-bishop. And King-knight. For the terminology.
Black's queen bishop is often called (black's) lightsquare bishop.
And white's queen-bishop often referred to as his darksquare bishop.
Advantage of those terms: no 'subscribing' to notation 'orthodoxy' there.
--------------------
Regarding white playing Bxf6 in the Queen's Gambit ...
and 'concrete calculation' ...
'calculation' usually refers to tactics. Not positional play.
So if there's little or 'tactics' arising following Bxf6 with black recapturing with either his Queen or his darksquare bishop .... then there may be 'nothing to calculate). For some moves after that.
There's also white recapturing with his g-pawn.
That can be much more Loaded!
Well, calculation can also be used for positional play. Generally, you need to 'calculate' lines even in a less tactical position and check imbalances regularly to make sure your position is strong and to not cause weaknesses in the position. This can require lots of thought and calculation to find the best line in any given position.
Would you agree that positional play is much harder to get right than tactical play - which can also be very hard?
Definitely, it even affects me. I sometimes find the tactical idea to puzzles, but I can never find the last positionally thought move. Tis is one of my weaknesses.
Hi !
Positional. Tactical. Calculate. Chess terminology.
'Quiet move'.
The Queen's gambit can get very tactical - all openings can.
But its 'quieter' than the Englund gambit.
d4 e5. 'Noisy' opening.
Or - d4 d5 e4
The Blackmar! (Blackmar-Diemer)
Not a 'quiet' opening.
-----------------------------
But the Queen's gambit starts (a lot of the time)
by d4 d5 c4 e6.
(it could also start by d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 d5 - and we're back in the Queen's gambit again. If black plays Bb4 instead of d5 then we've got a Nimzo. (Nimzo-Indian defense)
--------------------
Point: d4 d5 c4 e6.
There's four moves there. One of them was definitely tactical!
c4. Tactical move attacking black's d-pawn. Its also a positional move too.
What about e6 ....?
Tactical? Some might say 'No. e6 is Defense there. Defend the pawn at d5.'
Others might say - 'e6 is tactics too because defending against tactics is tactics.'
-------------------------------------
Chess has strict rules. Like what checkmate means.
But are there strict rules about general chess terminology?
No.
Are there arguments about that?
Yes.
Yes, strategy and tactics go hand in hand.