the tactician also makes something happen when nothing is happening.
What are you? Tactician or Strategian?
Sort:
TheDarkRookRises wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
When players below master call themselves "tacticians" or "attacking players" it usually means the have the habit of losing pawns and hoping for the best!
lol...so true!. I guess lableing is important to some. I like to keep things simple, and just play the position on the board.
Actually its the stategists who do things like that. For example, moving a rook to an openfile to gain better 'control' but forgetting the fact that rook can simple be forked in after a couple of forcing moves.
For example, I myself havent read a single book on strategy - my entire knowledge of strategy can be summed up in a page. But I've players rated 1700 in real life.
Strategists read books like "Silman's Amateur's mind" and think that their 'knowledge of chess' is going to save them over the board. I was advised against doing such things. Thus I stuck to tactics, still do. In many of my games, I end up in pressured positions, but I make combacks due to tactical oversights on the part of the opponent. Nothing feels better than beating a person who claims to have deep knowledge of sicilian with a g4 opening.
Heres an idea! play the best move on the board :-)
Diakonia wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
When players below master call themselves "tacticians" or "attacking players" it usually means the have the habit of losing pawns and hoping for the best!
lol...so true!. I guess lableing is important to some. I like to keep things simple, and just play the position on the board.
When below master players call themselves "tacticians" or "strategist", they are indicating in which parts of the game they're severely weak.
Diakonia wrote:
TheDarkRookRises wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
When players below master call themselves "tacticians" or "attacking players" it usually means the have the habit of losing pawns and hoping for the best!
lol...so true!. I guess lableing is important to some. I like to keep things simple, and just play the position on the board.
Actually its the stategists who do things like that. For example, moving a rook to an openfile to gain better 'control' but forgetting the fact that rook can simple be forked in after a couple of forcing moves.
For example, I myself havent read a single book on strategy - my entire knowledge of strategy can be summed up in a page. But I've players rated 1700 in real life.
Strategists read books like "Silman's Amateur's mind" and think that their 'knowledge of chess' is going to save them over the board. I was advised against doing such things. Thus I stuck to tactics, still do. In many of my games, I end up in pressured positions, but I make combacks due to tactical oversights on the part of the opponent. Nothing feels better than beating a person who claims to have deep knowledge of sicilian with a g4 opening.
Heres an idea! play the best move on the board :-)
If you can play the best move on the board all the time, you can even draw with God.
Thus, the question is - should you study tactics and be tactically as aware as possible or should you study strategy as a person starting out. And the answer is, without doubt, tactics.
Give an engine access to see only 2 moves ahead and access to ALL the databases in the world, give another engine access to see 3 moves ahead and give it no database. See which one wins. If you want to know if tactics is better or chess knowledge is better.
TheDarkRookRises wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
TheDarkRookRises wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Lasker1900 wrote:
When players below master call themselves "tacticians" or "attacking players" it usually means the have the habit of losing pawns and hoping for the best!
lol...so true!. I guess lableing is important to some. I like to keep things simple, and just play the position on the board.
Actually its the stategists who do things like that. For example, moving a rook to an openfile to gain better 'control' but forgetting the fact that rook can simple be forked in after a couple of forcing moves.
For example, I myself havent read a single book on strategy - my entire knowledge of strategy can be summed up in a page. But I've players rated 1700 in real life.
Strategists read books like "Silman's Amateur's mind" and think that their 'knowledge of chess' is going to save them over the board. I was advised against doing such things. Thus I stuck to tactics, still do. In many of my games, I end up in pressured positions, but I make combacks due to tactical oversights on the part of the opponent. Nothing feels better than beating a person who claims to have deep knowledge of sicilian with a g4 opening.
Heres an idea! play the best move on the board :-)
If you can play the best move on the board all the time, you can even draw with God.
Thus, the question is - should you study tactics and be tactically as aware as possible or should you study strategy as a person starting out. And the answer is, without doubt, tactics.
Give an engine access to see only 2 moves ahead and access to ALL the databases in the world, give another engine access to see 3 moves ahead and give it no database. See which one wins. If you want to know if tactics is better or chess knowledge is better.
I play the board, not labels.
solskytz,
Your game is very illegal.
@Diakonia
With all due respect, if that's the case - why are you not a grandmaster yet?
Having a basic strategic understanding also makes you better tactically. You can see forcing variations more easily (because you know this knight is better than that knight, or this endgame is lost while a different one is drawn) and sacrifices come to mind more quickly because you know when certain pawns are better than a piece, or when minor pieces are better than a rook, etc.
After spending some time with a strategy book and doing some endgame work, I was surprised to find it easier to solve tactic puzzles on chesstempo.
Tactics help strategy in the short term by exploiting and avoiding tactics, and in the long term because some forcing variations don't win any material, but tie up your opponent positionally.
Part of the beauty of chess is how both tactics and strategy are woven throughout all the transitions. Players balance all sorts of things during a game. Objective and practical decisions, dynamic and static advantages, a square or piece's value now vs its potential value later in the game.
TheDarkRookRises wrote:
@Diakonia
With all due respect, if that's the case - why are you not a grandmaster yet?
What excuse do you want? Take your pick, of any and, or all of the below:
1. Not good enough
2. No desire to put in the work
3. To old
4. Horrible memory
5. Titles dont interest me
6. I play for fun
7. Other things in life keep me busy
8. Dont want to pay a GM/IM for lessons/training
9. I dont analyze my games
10.I dont study openings
11. I dont study tactics (ok...i do, but rarely)
i do what is needed depending on the position
i do what's not needed in the position and then I lose :-)
Oct 27, 2015
0
#35
<Skotheim2> you remind me of a great Tartakower aphorism:
A game of chess divides into three stages:
First, you hope that you're better
Then, you believe that you're better
And lastly, you know that you're going to lose :-) !!!!!!
Second one you posted. The first one's fine. You resigned when you lost the queen.
Oct 27, 2015
0
#37
I just couldn't stand it any longer. The game was so good - maybe the best I ever played (the first one)!
The second game was indeed illegal, I totally agree :-)
Crazy attacker I dream at night of King Hunts, forks, sacrifices, decoys, pins,reloaders discovered attacks, Bishops,Queens Knights,Rooks, Pawns!
I want to drag my opponent into the middle of that deep dark forest Tal was talking about and leave him there with no flash light if a bear or some creature eats him that's his problem.
Evil tyrant. I make that b**** work and those footsoldiers march.
When players below master call themselves "tacticians" or "attacking players" it usually means the have the habit of losing pawns and hoping for the best!
lol...so true!. I guess lableing is important to some. I like to keep things simple, and just play the position on the board.
Actually its the stategists who do things like that. For example, moving a rook to an openfile to gain better 'control' but forgetting the fact that rook can simple be forked in after a couple of forcing moves.
For example, I myself havent read a single book on strategy - my entire knowledge of strategy can be summed up in a page. But I've players rated 1700 in real life.
Strategists read books like "Silman's Amateur's mind" and think that their 'knowledge of chess' is going to save them over the board. I was advised against doing such things. Thus I stuck to tactics, still do. In many of my games, I end up in pressured positions, but I make combacks due to tactical oversights on the part of the opponent. Nothing feels better than beating a person who claims to have deep knowledge of sicilian with a g4 opening.