Look Son, There are Tactics!

yeah those insane higher rated players telling us patzers to study tactics to stop dropping pieces to two and three move combinations or even less Dam them. They are insane. If I just undersood pawn and square weaknesses more and how to take advantage of them I would be 2000 by now. Tactical awareness what a waste of time. You are right. I mean who cares if I drop an entire piece while I formulate my master plan. My plan can still win with a piece down right. Tactics study does not help with positional understanding either Man you got this nailed. You have convinced me. I am going to completely stop studying tactics.

Originally posted by onehandgann
yeah those insane higher rated players telling us patzers to study tactics to stop dropping pieces to two and three move combinations or even less Dam them. They are insane. If I just undersood pawn and square weaknesses more and how to take advantage of them I would be 2000 by now. Tactical awareness what a waste of time. You are right. I mean who c ...[text shortened]... Man you got this nailed. You have convinced me. I am going to completely stop studying tactics.

my goodness are you sure Michael da la maza has not hired you as a ventriloquist dummy? and i object to the word 'patzer', we are all simply at differing transitional levels thats all.

You are completely and utterly missing the point, did i ever state, do not study tactics',? thats up to you and all those who advocate this type of thinking, of course every position requires that we calculate the advantages and disadvantages of certain variations, my point is and i will make it for the last time, thank goodness, that positional considerations should come first and foremost, that this not only contributes to sound play and the over all enjoyment of a chess game but also gratefully facilitates the thinking process when deciding which candidate moves are suitable and which we should reject, refute this if you will, and please do not get personal, this was simply a rather tongue in cheek response to greenpawn34 an individual with which I have the utmost respect for regardless of his views, i ask that you respect the same.

All things being said, come over to the dark side, you don't know the power of the dark side, give up all those boring tactical exercises and free your mind and become my disciple young Skywalker! 😀

You are taking on disciples?

And you want your disciples to completly give up tactical exercisises?


Not even your guru Silman would agree with that.

Positional considerations should come before tactical? So the last thing( on my mind when I make a move should be losing my own pieces or winning those of my opponent? Um I will try that my next games and see how it goes. I will spend the first 5 minutes of a move taking into positional considerations and then once I have my positional chosen candidate moves I will only then look to see if I lose a piece or could have instead gained a piece from my opponent or maybe I wont bother with tactical considerations at all. Wait I just did that one game I comletely ignored to see if after I moved a piece if I went down material but put that piece in a place where I thought it was positionally better and I lost it to a simple knight fork. Is it only me is there some faults in the sequence of this thought process. But if you want disciples I will become your disciple, try your method, and send you all the lost pieces as gratitude to my master.

Sadly, we must now add Mr. Heisman's name to the long list of insane people who have dared to disagree with our esteemed colleague, Mr. Carrobie.

From Heisman's Novice Nook Number 57:

Principle of Tactical Dominance

Tactical criteria dominate positional criteria. Therefore, use of positional criteria is almost always useless if there is a tactic that wins material or checkmates; decide tactics first and only apply positional criteria if no tactic exists.

For anyone who would like to read the entire article (Robbie, you're exempt from this - I suspect nothing on this Earth is going to change your mind anyway), here's the link:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman57.pdf

Originally posted by onehandgann
And you want your disciples to completly give up tactical exercisises?


Not even your guru Silman would agree with that.

lol, The emperor Silman wants to meet you young Skywalker, it is your destiny!

Actually dude I have read Silmans books, well, reassess your chess anyway, it was even worse than all those tactical exercises that Michael da la Maza suggests that we practise, (I have read and practised the seven circles etc etc and not benefited, al least not consciously anyway.)

The problem with Silmans book was that it listed millions of positional principles, with references, that in themselves are good if you can remember them, but did not contribute anything to the thought process.

It was just as fruitless as tactics, 'oh look there is an open file, rooks belong on open files i better move there? its the thought process that i am interested in and tried to explain in my original post with references.

I mean how do you continue after say 1.e4, do you simply memorise a plethora of opening lines, surely not, as this is memory and not chess.

I tried to show, probably unsuccessfully judging by the reaction, that all candidate moves must be considered and there respective pros and cons put to the test using the guiding principle that there are strategically important squares that maintain their strategic importance throughout the entire game, is it not so? 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I tried to show, probably unsuccessfully judging by the reaction, that all candidate moves must be considered and there respective pros and cons put to the test using the guiding principle that there are strategically important squares that maintain their strategic importance throughout the entire game, is it not so? 😀

I'd agree that square control is one of several key guidelines for choosing moves, but not the only one, and not always the predominant one in each position.

You never did answer my question from the other thread. I think the source of the disagreement is a difference in the definition of terms like 'tactics'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
lol, The emperor Silman wants to meet you young Skywalker, it is your destiny!

Actually dude I have read Silmans books, well, reassess your chess anyway, it was even worse than all those tactical exercises that Michael da la Maza suggests that we practise, (I have read and practised the seven circles etc etc and not benefited, al least not con ...[text shortened]... squares that maintain their strategic importance throughout the entire game, is it not so? 😀

It's possible that "Reassess Your Chess" was simply above you're level and not much use to you at the moment. You might find "The Amateurs Mind" more accessible if you're looking to benefit from a Silman book. This book is orientated towards the study of positional ideas so it may well be more what you're after.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'd agree that square control is one of several key guidelines for choosing moves, but not the only one, and not always the predominant one in each position.

peace be upon you my friend, and may your sons be as numerous as the sands of the desert, your wives and daughters radiate like the desert moon and your wins as beautiful as the desert saffron !

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
peace be upon you my friend, and may your sons be as numerous as the sands of the desert, your wives and daughters radiate like the desert moon and your wins as beautiful as the desert saffron !

Umm, yeah...and you have a nice day too. 😛

Originally posted by Mahout
It's possible that "Reassess Your Chess" was simply above you're level and not much use to you at the moment. You might find "The Amateurs Mind" more accessible if you're looking to benefit from a Silman book. This book is orientated towards the study of positional ideas so it may well be more what you're after.

actually i have both - none of the concepts was/is 'above my level', I have yet to find 'my level', the concepts and ideas were clearly defined with references, what more could you ask, Silman is Silman and what can we say.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I'd agree that square control is one of several key guidelines for choosing moves, but not the only one, and not always the predominant one in each position.

You never did answer my question from the other thread. I think the source of the disagreement is a difference in the definition of terms like 'tactics'.

hi, my apologies for that, it just seems strange, no not strange, unusual but refreshing never the less that someone as highly rated as yourself should be interested in what I have to think, with the exception of greenpawn34 most of those other guys couldn't care less, so i was taken aback that's all. talk to me more about the differing criteria that one can utilise to aid the thought process and choice of move, as for tactics, i cannot honestly say, pins, skewered pieces, x-rays, forks etc etc.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually i have both - none of the concepts was/is 'above my level', I have yet to find 'my level', the concepts and ideas were clearly defined with references, what more could you ask, Silman is Silman and what can we say.

Oh OK. I only have The Amateurs Mind and I'd been told that the other book (apart from the beginning) was aimed at a higher level or something...which is why I was leaving it alone for now.

Originally posted by Mahout
Oh OK. I only have The Amateurs Mind and I'd been told that the other book (apart from the beginning) was aimed at a higher level or something...which is why I was leaving it alone for now.

Actually sir you are probably correct, some of the endgame stuff, triangulation etc is well not above our heads, just i dunno needs to be learned and practised so that we can do it with our eyes closed, i would much rather argue pointlessly, in the face of all opposition for a principle that i don't even understand myself, to a world that is not ready, lol, than do all that endgame stuff. please i say this sincerely i have great respect for those who try to help others, it is an admirable quality worthy of imitation and i genuinely thank you for it.😀