general ideas v tactics

hi, i am having a little dilemma at the moment, after some extensive tactical training on chesstempo, my tactics rating for doing the little sets of problems is 1630 and rising, ok not very high, but what happens is that when i look at a position and there are no tactics i try to make some, and usually there are none, i get into difficulties and get whupped. now i have discovered a little set of games where ideas are the basis for forming moves, for example taking control of a long diagonal, pawn storms, opening up files and diagonals against king, attacks against uncastled king, advance of the h pawn, advance of the g pawn, kings on opposite wings, the importance of tempo in which every move counts etc etc. without these general ideas and their understanding the games and move choices would not have made any sense, what is happening to me? why must i view everything as a variation, of pins, skewers, forks etc etc why has no one told me about these other considerations, which in many instances form the basis for the entire game plan and more importantly choice of move!

for example here is a game against an uncastled king, notice the move 12.Ng5, white realizes that he can exert pressure on the black king, even at the expense of giving up the center!

here is an excellent example of taking control of diagonals and the advancement of the h pawn

here is another, exposure of an uncastled king!

This was the second blitz game in the play-off of the final of the PCA
quickplay in Geneva (the first was drawn). Anand was convinced that the
opening variation was better for White so repeated it.
However, he was less thrilled to find himself with exactly the same pawn structure on the kingside as before.
Once again, Kasparov had a superb position., and even though black eventually lost it demostrates the idea of h pawn attack!
note potency of 30.Qc6!

base your play on general ideas, and check against tactics. never the other way around, because you'll just end up into a rubbish position with loads of tactics against you.

example of a pawn storm
23.g4 The storm starts. White is looking to open the f-file or
force the pawn to f6. Getting the support of the g-pawn is clearly necessary
to avoid exchanges on f5.

Originally posted by wormwood
base your play on general ideas, and check against tactics. never the other way around, because you'll just end up into a rubbish position with loads of tactics against you.

yes my learned friend, this is what happens, i get into rubbish position and get whupped!

this game illustrates the idea of kings on opposite wings in which speed is of the essence, this case Black is far quicker with his counterplay on the c-file, so White's kingside attack never really gets going.

move 16 the pawn gets thrown at the king in the hope of opening a file. whereas 18.d5! opens up the diagonal for the bishop to enter the attack.

Pretty clearly tactics must be submitted to strategy. Tactics have no sense in themselves, they are only tools to be used to achieve ends. You cannot tihnk of a chess game as a series of tricks! tricks are nice, beautiful, etc; but you have to create them, first; to take benefit from them, second. and as you said, many games have no particular strong tricks.
Learn positional play; then you will get understand the beauty of positional moves, positional sacrifices, etc.
Good luck!

another pawn storm, in this game once white got his attack rolling then he didn't look back, but getting to
that point was difficult. He had to find some clever preparatory moves before he could turn to bludgeoning Black's king.
noteworthy moves are 13.Nh4 and the subsequent 14. f4 the idea behind moving the knight - to shove the f-pawn up the board and 15. Ba3 this really puts a break on Black's queenside play as moving the c-pawn would open the diagonal for the bishop

Originally posted by Macpo
Pretty clearly tactics must be submitted to strategy. Tactics have no sense in themselves, they are only tools to be used to achieve ends. You cannot tihnk of a chess game as a series of tricks! tricks are nice, beautiful, etc; but you have to create them, first; to take benefit from them, second. and as you said, many games have no particular strong tricks. ...[text shortened]... you will get understand the beauty of positional moves, positional sacrifices, etc.
Good luck!

thankyou for your kind words, if you have any games illustrating chess principles and the logic behind the moves then please post, i also wish you well - regards robbie.

Originally posted by Macpo
Pretty clearly tactics must be submitted to strategy. Tactics have no sense in themselves, they are only tools to be used to achieve ends. You cannot tihnk of a chess game as a series of tricks! tricks are nice, beautiful, etc; but you have to create them, first; to take benefit from them, second. and as you said, many games have no particular strong tricks. ...[text shortened]... you will get understand the beauty of positional moves, positional sacrifices, etc.
Good luck!

Macpo pretty much has it right here. Tactics are the nuts and bolts which underpin a sound positional strategy.

However, you can be outplayed positionally, and still win because your tactical vision is greater, whereas it's highly unlikely that you will win simply because your positional sense is strong if you don't have the tactical ability to back it up!

This is why working on tactics is the clearest and quickest way to improve your results.

Think of it this way, you can build a house if you know how to hammer a nail into wood (tactics). It might be quite ugly but it will probably keep you warm and dry! On the other hand, planning a big, beautiful house (positional sense) is pretty worthless if you can't use a hammer and nails!

Originally posted by streetfighter
Macpo pretty much has it right here. Tactics are the nuts and bolts which underpin a sound positional strategy.

However, you can be outplayed positionally, and still win because your tactical vision is greater, whereas it's highly unlikely that you will win simply because your positional sense is strong if you don't have the tactical ability to back ...[text shortened]... , beautiful house (positional sense) is pretty worthless if you can't use a hammer and nails!

yes its very good analogy, however tactics are fairly concrete and straightforward, we envision the pattern in our mind, they can almost be deduced from the negative results and tested there and then as to their validity, positional concepts and principles seem to be much more subtle, almost just a general idea, if we are unaware of these ideas, then how can we proceed? for to use the analogy of a house, we may be an excellent carpenter but if we have no knowledge of structural engineering the house may not be sound!

if anyone has any games illustrating these general principles and ideas, please post so that we may grasp their significance and better our understanding of the royal game - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if anyone has any games illustrating these general principles and ideas, please post so that we may grasp their significance and better our understanding of the royal game - regards Robbie.

Have a look at the game in this article I wrote a couple of days ago Robbie. http://www.chess.com/article/view/best-of-british-part-2

It shows how a knowledge of the general stategy for a position must be backed up by concrete tactical operations.

In particluar look at black's choice on move 9 - his failure to spot the correct tactical operations led to him adopting a very dubious mini-plan. moves (9&10).

In contrast, look at my moves 22 onwards and see how the tactical operations conform to the positional demands of the position.

I'll try to post the game here in a few minutes (without the notes though)