I mostly agree with you but sometimes strategy can help you get a better position.
Strategy or no strategy?
Sort:
Nov 5, 2015
0
#3
You're equating strategy with heuristics, but heuristics aren't rules: they're rules of thumb / guidelines that aren't guaranteed to apply every time, so nobody is forcing you to follow them. In fact, the best chess players know exactly when best to violate those guidelines, which is partly why the results are so delightful to the rest of us heuristics followers. ("How could he get away with that, and then win?!") Also, part of strategy is not fixed heuristics, but rather a general plan that could be unique for that position.
You also should realize that each chess position has its own best way to attack or defend, which is where analysis comes in, so you need to do what your analysis/board says for that position, which means you can't follow either heuristics *or* your whims rigidly: you need to do exactly what the logic of the position tells you to do--assuming you want to produce a good result with high efficiency. Chess is part logic, don't forget, and the mathematics of optimization still holds. There is still plenty of room for creativity even if you use heuristics and analysis, though.
----------
(p. 1)
IMBALANCES
The heart of my system of training is based on an understanding of
the dynamic and static differences (known as imbalances) that exist
in every position. By recognizing the different imbalances in a given
situation, a player of virtually any strength can understand what his
responsibilities are towards that position with relative ease.
Note that I used the word "responsibilities." A player can't do
anything he wishes to do. For example, if you love to attack, you
can't go after the enemy King in any and all situations. Instead,
you have to learn to read the board and obey its dictates. If the
board wants you to attack the King, then attack it. If the board
wants you to play in a quiet positional vein, then you must follow
that advice to the letter.
Silman, Jeremy. 1999. The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd Edition/Expanded. Los Angeles, CA: Siles Press.
Sqod wrote:
You're equating strategy with heuristics, but heuristics aren't rules: they're rules of thumb / guidelines that aren't guaranteed to apply every time, so nobody is forcing you to follow them. In fact, the best chess players know exactly when best to violate those guidelines, which is partly why the results are so delightful to the rest of us heuristics followers. ("How could he get away with that, and then win?!") Also, part of strategy is not fixed heuristics, but rather a general plan that could be unique for that position.
You also should realize that each chess position has its own best way to attack or defend, which is where analysis comes in, so you need to do what your analysis/board says for that position, which means you can't follow either heuristics *or* your whims rigidly: you need to do exactly what the logic of the position tells you to do--assuming you want to produce a good result with high efficiency. Chess is part logic, don't forget, and the mathematics of optimization still holds. There is still plenty of room for creativity even if you use heuristics and analysis, though.
----------
(p. 1)
IMBALANCES
The heart of my system of training is based on an understanding of
the dynamic and static differences (known as imbalances) that exist
in every position. By recognizing the different imbalances in a given
situation, a player of virtually any strength can understand what his
responsibilities are towards that position with relative ease.
Note that I used the word "responsibilities." A player can't do
anything he wishes to do. For example, if you love to attack, you
can't go after the enemy King in any and all situations. Instead,
you have to learn to read the board and obey its dictates. If the
board wants you to attack the King, then attack it. If the board
wants you to play in a quiet positional vein, then you must follow
that advice to the letter.
Silman, Jeremy. 1999. The Amateur's Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd Edition/Expanded. Los Angeles, CA: Siles Press.
Very great advice.
You should learn about strategy because you need to be able to recognize your opponent's strategy and do something about it.
A good way to learn strategy is to come up with one while you are playing a game.
Everything revolves around guidelines. Even life... a simple one would be treat others as you would like to be treated. Same can be applied in chess. For example, if you have the bishop pair, generally you want to open the position up.
Sounds like your just newer to chess. I still suck so don't take my thoughts as anything noteworthy but when I was newer I did a lot of unorthodox things and prayed for the best. I felt at the time that learning openings ect would just be a waste and ruin this innocence I had.
In a sense I miss that aspect but I find my drive to win overtakes my drive to diversify, this, half ass learning openings.
GL on your chess journey.
MrKornKid wrote:
Sounds like your just newer to chess. I still suck so don't take my thoughts as anything noteworthy but when I was newer I did a lot of unorthodox things and prayed for the best. I felt at the time that learning openings ect would just be a waste and ruin this innocence I had.
In a sense I miss that aspect but I find my drive to win overtakes my drive to diversify, this, half ass learning openings.
GL on your chess journey.
lol Actually i've been playing ever since i was a kid. I've been doing the same thing over and over. The more practice i got, the better i became. I also find my determination to win overcome the pressure.
Chess strategy has evolved greatly over the past 150 years. The top players of today are so much stronger than the top players from the 19th century. This is because many great minds have contributed to the body of chess knowledge that we have today.
To ignore all of this is foolish. Even if you are talented, you likely will do no more than rediscover chess concepts everyone has known for 100 years. You would have to be an exceptional talent to discover something new. Most likely you will simply bumble along without a clue. But if this is what you want, to each their own.
Do you think i should learn Chess strategies from teachers? I've almost always played Chess naturally. I dislike following rules because i feel it restricts my creativity. I like making my own strategy and being unpredictable. What are your thoughts?