What percentage of my mother is fat?
What percentage of chess is tactics
Sort:
pic ?
leiph18 wrote:
Also I hate how some moves are over-simplified by commentators.
"Oh Mr 2800 so-and-so played f3 because it controls e4."
No shit it controls e4. There's a little more going on that that... yes e4 is important but I still don't know if it makes sense or not
Or you know, Carlsen maneuvers his bishop somewhere "now it's on a nice diagonal" no shit. But there were a dozen other maneuvers available in the position to which you could have appended similarly trite praise.
You realize that it only seems oversimplified to people who don't understand where they're coming from right? Clearly they discounted the other manouvres for whatever reasons. They're not doing that to appeal to poor players, that's how they talk about it to each other.
It's the same in videogames. To a mediocre or average person it seems like there's a zillion things going on at once, while if you have two pros discuss it it's amazing the relaxed and simple-looking way they comment on it. It is a strange effect though, it's like "there are so many things going on out at once, and you want to talk about such a tiny elemental idea?!"
tkbunny wrote:
idk, but after we find out how many %, what do we do?
We count the %s and put them in baskets
owltuna wrote:
"It's the same in videogames."
That has nothing to do with anything we were talking about as far as I could see. Thanks for wasting my time.
Jan 30, 2015
0
#67
i thought it was a good question.
i bought the book "tactics time" on kindle and i'm at problem 700 out of 1000. when i'm done with the first book, i'll buy the next one which has another 1000. when i'm done with that i'll go back to the first one.
its the single best thing i've done to play better but it hasn't changed my rating much. however, i have more fun playing and understand things better. i really believe over time it will bring me up a couple hundred points.
i've played through games, read theory books, but this book (and study of tactics) is the only that has been worth the time and held my attention.
i dig seeing a chess board as a spatial thing, with a constant flow of patterns. its a game of attacking and defending, nothing else.
chess theory and memorizing openings is dull. i'm sure it helps but i play chess to have fun and if i'm ever rated as a 1500 i'll be more than happy. if it doesn't happen no big deal.
good luck
Jan 30, 2015
0
#68
Some people say that is around -100*e^(i*(pi))% where i=sqrt(-1). I tend to think it's about a third of that. Good positions give way to good tactics, although some times it takes tactics to make good positions.
Google can help with the math speak if you missed the joke.
Jan 30, 2015
0
#69
blitzjoker wrote:
I think 73% of these estimates are just made up figures.
Tactics are tools. Which are the most useful tactics depends on what you are trying to do. It's like asking what is the most useful tool? It depends on what you are building. If you are trying to drive a nail, a hammer will be needed a lot and will be the most useful tool. If you are framing a house you will need a plan, some 2X4s, a saw and hammer and some nails. The plan, the hammer and the saw are useful only if you know how and when to use them.
Shaolin monks can drive nails with their foreheads.
Ghosts rule the world
Jan 31, 2015
0
#73
Speaking only for myself, I often see tactics based on positional ideas.....a scan for loose pieces or cheap material wins will yield nothing, but then a scan for weak squares will point me to a pin, fork, or skewer I hadn't seen before. Also, a tactic is sometimes best left unresolved for positional reasons - you could win an exchange but create a dangerous passed pawn in the process....which by purely tactical evaluation is a great idea, but, in practical play, is pretty risky depending on whether or not you'll be able to block the pawn.
Maybe tactics are 80%+ of class-level chess.....but finding good squares for your pieces is probably 80%+ of creating the opportunity for a tactical shot. Puzzles ask you to jump straight into a position that someone else set up....in real games, you have to make your own chances rather than receiving a preset "white to move and win", and, like it or not (unless your opponent is very nice and hangs things for you), positional play will decide how you get there.
Jan 31, 2015
0
#74
59.432069% according to my magic 8ball.. The same percentage of silliness to this question
Chess: 100% tactics, 100% intuition, 100% pawn structure and 100% fun 100% of the time
I remember someone saying 99% but I believe that to be false because tactics flow out of a superior position. Someone also said that too. I find my self trying to create a position where I can try for a tactical shot. Sometimes out of 50 moves.. I only find two or three tactics that decide the outcome but the rest of the moves were chess :)
Tactics can flow out of inferior positions, you'll see them when there are errors, ie when non perfect players play.
I remember reviewing a database of games that went all the way back to 800 rating. I noticed, I played tactics all of the time but to actually get a better rating.. I needed to focus on position and learning how to not out right drop pieces as often.. which came with better position. After that.. the tactics started working out a little better :)
I don't understand this. Computers play by applying evaluation function to possible future positions and comparing them with minimax algorithm. You have to search at least 1 half-move in depth. Otherwise you have just one current position in front of you and can only compare it to itself.
Both Fritz and Aquarium don't allow to set Search Depth to 0, minimal value is 1.
Positional factors together with material factors are part of evaluation function.
I applied for a programming job once where my interviewer told me the story of how his company's chess program beat all the other programs when they competed by pure heuristics, with the move search turned off. I admit I never thought about the details. One possibility is that goals were generated first, for example the goal of center control, then units were favored depending on how centralized they were, without considering the consequences of actually moving.