Why do you not ask masters this will give you a 100% answer, we are not at their level yet and likely never will be so the experts are the ones at the top of the heap to sk for their opinion and we might be surprised as no one will ever tell us the truth to not reveal their strength.
What percentage of chess is tactics
Sort:
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
110%
The master has spoken
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
110%
i rest my case! lol
Yogi Berra said chess is 90% tactics, 10% strategy, and 5% common sense.
Jan 29, 2015
0
#28
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
110%
Good. That means I can work 10% less than before. 
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
this is jsut a distracting question. YOu need to understand how to play logical moves...almsot all positions do not have a winning tactic. If you are playing chess constantly trying to set up a winning tactic then any person who knows how to just play simple and logical chess can beat you without effort...your moves need to have a point and not simply hope that your opponent overlooks something.
But you do need to know what positions would be forced by tactics and whether its ok for you or not. depending on the position it may or may not be necessary for you to examine every move with every piece and what would happen. At a certain level both players reach a sort of strategic 'maturity' and their moves all make sense...but the winner is the one that is calculating better.
False, it can also be who knows more of the theory of the position, whether it's an endgame fortress, a part of opening theory or something in one of Suetin's books.
Once again, the furthur up you go along the rankings the less tactics matter in general.
Unless youre playing a Master or higher, opeing theory doesnt matter, You need to understand opening principles.
Jan 29, 2015
0
#30
5swords....Thank you for taking the time out for all your input here....very good stuff !....L
Fiveofswords wrote:
no its the truth. When these guys are saying chess is 95% tactics what they really mean and fail to articulate is that this is what THEY are thinking about in the game because the rest is jsut automatic. Its memory.
But you need to reach that level. People learnign the game and most people on this site are not at that level. SO if they just focus on tactics and never understand when a move is logical they will never be good.
Therein lies the problem. Those of us who have to struggle with understanding when a move is logical use tactics as a tool to help gain an understanding. Only 1% of the top 1% are grand master level. I started playing when I was a 10 year old. I am now 70. With all that time I am only about a 1650 to 1700 rating. If I play a 1500 or below I will probably win 2 thirds of the time. If I play an 1800 or above I will probably lose 3 fourths of the time. Then there are those geniuses like Paul Morphy who, without much training, started winning against almost anyone he played.
Perhaps Fiveofswords would agree that his thesis is valid for grand masters but for us average players tactics are a useful tool.
In highly tactical positions, chess is 93.753% tactics.
In medium frequency tactical positions, it drops to 87.47685%.
In low frequency tactical positions, the percentage is 86.4997%.
In actual games, the percentages are even less again due to missed tactics by humanoids.
And, what is the percentage for the starting position on the chess board?
Zero.
Unless Chuck Norris is chillin'.
I think 73% of these estimates are just made up figures.
Yeah, I was just calling her(?) bluff.
I_Am_Second wrote:
JGambit wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
Child_Krishna wrote:
What percentage of chess is tactics? I have heard 50%, 90%, 99%, and, I believe, 110%. What are the other parts of chess and why do I not care about them?
All you need to understand is that chess is 100% calculation.
yep, I'll add that in chess problems mate is considered a tactic, to me that means 100% of chess is tactics. Even if you are a positional grinder (like me) the goal always is to be able to use a tactical sequence that will eventually force mate.
I know a guy that will sit there and look for tactics, and lose a lot of game on time. But when he just looks at the position, and plays the position he does very well.
He just isn't searching as wide or deep. He's still looking for tactics.
Lol, Fiveofswords please stop noobing!
Jan 29, 2015
0
#39
The answer is contextual. The game of Chess and the ppl pushing the pieces vary so much that an accurate percentage of tactical play would be immpossible. If such a number were to exist it would be transient and therefore useless.
The higher the count of pieces on the board would appear to relate to a higher opportunity for tactics. This is not aways true for example in closed positions. The end game has fewer pieces and therefore less tactical opportunities.
**An tactic in the mid-game, say winning a piece does not have the same value as a sucessful tactic in the end game winning the game.**
An attempt to answer your question would require a multi-dimensional matrix of information just to cover the basic factors of Chess.
Percentages that appear 'highly accurate' and to the 3rd degree (ty Venus-rat-trap) are possibly taken from an engine at the time. Once that engine has some more game information the percentages will change. All of the percentages quoted are so close that we may as well say (as humans) that tactical positions on an average are 89.243183%. This is not very useful.
Rather than trying to define a percentage my time would be better spent enjoying a game. You may like to compare previous games at certain moves to compare tactical possiblities, but why?
34.21%