After doing more tactical puzzles I find that with more games, after having left standard openings and databases, I seem to be more successful with moves that "feels" right. Even though I still do not yet see any direct tactical opportunities.
It is fair to say that practising tactics help with strategical play?
Originally posted by lauseyI think it's fair to say that parctising tactics helps in finding situatiions where a tactic can follow 🙂
After doing more tactical puzzles I find that with more games, after having left standard openings and databases, I seem to be more successful with moves that "feels" right. Even though I still do not yet see any direct tactical opportunities.
It is fair to say that practising tactics help with strategical play?
Originally posted by lauseyI believe good tactics is more important for the average person like us.
After doing more tactical puzzles I find that with more games, after having left standard openings and databases, I seem to be more successful with moves that "feels" right. Even though I still do not yet see any direct tactical opportunities.
It is fair to say that practising tactics help with strategical play?
A grandmaster playing against another grandmaster must also have good
strategy. Learning strategy seems must harder to understand than tactics,
even though certain tactics seem hard to see in a game.
Tactics are absolutely necessary to even begin to use strategy. There was a very weak chess player at my club who read Silman, a lot.
I beat him with Queen odds, because he just didn't pay attention to what was attacking what.
So we played a game together, but I made him talk about the position before he made a move.
Him: "Well, let's see. I have an active dark square bishop, and my pawns are controlling the light squares. I'd say I have a positional advantage here. Now I'm going to control the center!" (Moves pawn)
Me: "Huh? Dude, I just attacked your knight with my pawn on the last move and you didn't move it. Lolz."
Fischer said that tactics flow from a superior position, but the irony is that you can't get a superior position without taking tactics into account.
Here's a game I played recently that I think illustrates why tactics are of more immediate importance than strategy.
Originally posted by TimmyBxIf you're talking about my post, go ahead.
lol - I love this little story!
I write an e-mail newsletter on chess improvement and chess tactics. Would you mind if I reprinted it there, giving you credit of course?
I think it makes a great point, and I found it very amusing!
Cheers,
Tim
http://tacticstime.com
Originally posted by RJHinds2250 - i wouldn't call you average.
I believe good tactics is more important for the average person like us.
A grandmaster playing against another grandmaster must also have good
strategy. Learning strategy seems must harder to understand than tactics,
even though certain tactics seem hard to see in a game.
Originally posted by tim88On a good day I've bested some of those thinner air breathers. On bad days I've been swindled by the lowliest teenhundreds. I'm still average.
2250 - i wouldn't call you average.
RJ isn't anything.
and tactics+strategy are a yin and yang. Everyone here covered it well. Its an impossible essence to fully understand.
Q
Originally posted by PhySiQI don't know. I think it is easy enough to understand. If you don't understand why the strategical move is good, then you won't be able to exploit your advantage.
and tactics+strategy are a yin and yang. Everyone here covered it well. Its an impossible essence to fully understand.
Q[/b]
Once you understand the position, then you will understand what to do.
Most of us don't understand the position. We don't understand all the tactical intricacies, therefore there is no chance that we will see what to do.
Then again, it doesn't really matter because our opponents don't understand it either.
