"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
Quit misleading people with your trolling, I'm trying to help people and you're just fing with them.
These forums could use more like Spongey who are only trying to make a positive contribution, and fewer arrogant, immature bullies such as Savage47...
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
What do you want to study?
… Until you can learn to eliminate major tactical mistakes from your game, positional play isn't going to mean anything.
… If one makes major tactical mistakes in some games, does that mean that positional play can't help in some of the others? Can it be easier to avoid major tactical mistakes if one improves one's ability to avoid difficult positions?
Someone who makes major tactical mistakes in one game (and is low rated) will likely make major tactical mistakes in all of their games.
You claim a player 1300-1400 is unlikely to make a major tactical mistake in one game and not in another? How unlikely? Have any particular probability in mind (and a source for this information)? And suppose the un"likely" does happen and we have a player who can make a major tactical mistake in a game without making "major tactical mistakes in all" games? Is there a reason that it would not be helpful for such a player to gain a little positional understanding? To repeat a previous question: Can it be easier to avoid major tactical mistakes if one improves one's ability to avoid difficult positions?
Savage47 wrote: Yes, it's possible that a 1000 rated
Do you have some reason to believe that espiritukent is "1000 rated"?
Savage47 wrote: could play a perfect tactical game but how often is that going to happen and even when it does is it worth the time invested?
Why does it matter how often a perfect tactical game happens? Don't a lot of tactical mistakes go unnoticed? Is there some reason to rule out plentiful games where positional knowledge could be of some help?
Savage47 wrote: Let's say hypothetically a player can choose between A. studying tactics or B studying positional play. ...
Is there some reason to rule out doing some of both?
Savage47 wrote: … Your solution: spend 10,000 hours so you can win that one game. ...
Who are you addressing? Where does anyone say anything about spending "10,000 hours" on positional play?
Savage47 wrote: … Spend a fraction of the time (say 1000 hours) and win 2500 more games. ...
Do all players make the same gains from a certain amount of tactical study? Do many beginner books see some value in something other than exclusive tactics study? It might be of interest to look at the table of contents of A COMPLETE CHESS COURSE by Antonio Gude: "... 3 Openings and Basic Principles 33 ... 4 Putting Your Pieces to Work 52 ... 5 Strategy and Tactics 76 ... 6 Endgame Play and Further Openings 106 … 7 Combinations and Tactical Themes 128 ... 8 Attacking Play 163 ... 9 Your First Opening Repertoire 194 …"
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf
No positional advantage is worth more than a pawn. Period.
I'm not convinced that this is true
... The only time positional play matters is when both sides play relatively flawless games ...
I see no reason to believe that that is true. A flaw in the play of one player may be negated by a flaw in the play of the opponent. Flaws can go unnoticed during a game. Also positional play can influence the occurrence of difficult positions where flaws are harder to avoid.
Savage47 wrote: … a large amount of time on positional play may not provide any benefit at all. ...
Who said "large amount of time on positional play" (other than you)?
Savage47 wrote: … I'm saying a small amount of tactics study will reap some benefit in the majority of games a person plays ...
Do all players make the same gains from a certain amount of tactical study?
Savage47 wrote: … you've concocted this ridiculously improbable scenario in your head that if everything happens exactly as you say : ie a beginner plays like a GM and ...
You do not have an accurate perception of what goes on in my head.
Savage47 wrote: … consider that you can't really understand positional books without an understanding of tactics ...
Do you see a specific sentence anywhere advocating that tactics be ignored?
Savage47 wrote: … what'[s the point of this inane discussion ...
I see no reason to believe that positional play isn't going to mean anything until espiritukent can learn to eliminate major tactical mistakes. Do many beginner books see some value in something other than exclusive tactics study? It might be of interest to look at the table of contents of A COMPLETE CHESS COURSE by Antonio Gude: "... 3 Openings and Basic Principles 33 ... 4 Putting Your Pieces to Work 52 ... 5 Strategy and Tactics 76 ... 6 Endgame Play and Further Openings 106 … 7 Combinations and Tactical Themes 128 ... 8 Attacking Play 163 ... 9 Your First Opening Repertoire 194 …"
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf
You could forget about classical books at the moment. Focus on practicing all aspect of your game: endgame, tactics, opening, strategy. I recently read a GM who said he never read a chess book. Once I talked to a IM who said you don’t need books on openings, but s database with commented games, so you can your “own” book. (I have to admit that I didn’t follow this advice yet).
To learn efficiently you should use spaced repetition to review what you have learned. And you should be able to ask stronger players about moves that seem enigmatic to you. Basically you should never “learn” a move or sequence of moves without understanding them. Sounds simple , right? But s lot of weak players simply learn things by heart, and this is a horrible idea.
At the moment the best tool offering spaced repetition and the opportunity to ask questions about moves is Chessable. You can register there for free, and begin to learn a book on basic endgames for free. At the same time you can work with tactics, also for free.
You should begin to learn a basic repertoire, there are several books in Chessable for free. Against 1.e4 you can try the French Defence (easier to understand the strategical concepts). One of the best ways to work on strategy is to go through whole games in your opening. Try to understand which are the key ideas in certain pawn structures, for example which are the pawn breaks and how to place your pieces. Which white you could try 1.b3 (often played by NAKAMURA in blitz), most people will not know how to react to this.
The most important thing is to analyse your games, this is the key for improvement.