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. 
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.
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.
Fiveofswords your stance is both stupid and wrong. Nobody has ever claimed such a thing and likely noone else ever will.
Now don't expect me to come back here as you start insinuating how you actually said something else entirely or whatever, I'm tired of your nonsense.
Jan 29, 2015
0
#32
5swords....Thank you for taking the time out for all your input here....very good stuff !....L
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
5swords....Thank you for taking the time out for all your input here....very good stuff !....L
Don't enable him. To me it's sad to see someone undergoing a meltdown.
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.
gopher_the_throat wrote:
Perhaps Fiveofswords would agree that his thesis is valid for grand masters but for us average players tactics are a useful tool.
We already established his "thesis" is utter horseshit and goes against everything in chess we ever knew and everything Super GMs, IMs and FMs have said after almost EVERY SINGLE GAME and almost every single article since at least since chess notation was invented.
34.21%