Look Son, There are Tactics!

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
You look for tactics for both sides first - that's the point!
Any thought process that looks for positional gains before tactical considerations is doomed to failure.
Do you really not understand this simple concept?

ahem, uh, duh, no the concept seems just a little elusive at present, just a little hazy, in fact purple hazy, you know just a ships smoke on the horizon.

Obviously i am just too stupid to accept this simple premise, I thank you for condescending to try to enlighten me but i am simply questioning its validity in the thought making process, if that makes you uncomfortable or appears illogical/insane or any other derogatory adjective then so be it.

Look who can we trust but ourselves when making decisions?, if that's what rocks yo socks then who am i to argue with success - tactical and positional play are intrinsically linked and must be understood in this context, ummmm i think.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
OK, I know I've promised twice to not post again in the two "Daddy and Son" threads, and I've broken that promise twice. 😞

But I'm going to add a little intrigue to this thread. I'd like to address a few issues, but I'll only do so if Robbie performs one specific action. However, I'm not going to say what that action is. Robbie will simply have to corr ...[text shortened]... any more in the thread, so I'm not sure how much of an incentive this really is. 😉

Maddened rook, dude, deep deep inside I know you have a love of chess that reflects itself even in the banal questionings of a super noob like me. Your contribution has been immense, like a stalwart Dutch defence, unbreakable in your resolve you have endeavoured to show me the folly of my way, even providing references for your ideas and thoughts, truly refreshing. i love guessing games and really appreciate your contributions therefore I will endeavour to keep your interest alive by undertaking this most unusual of tasks, if by sundown i have not guessed, will my wife turn back into a frog princess? how many guesses will you give, two, three or will it be instant death. so if i do not hear from you again i know i will have got it wrong, so hear goes, you want me too look up the link with regard to the Principle of Tactical Dominance, is it not so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahem, uh, duh, no the concept seems just a little elusive at present, just a little hazy, in fact purple hazy, you know just a ships smoke on the horizon.

Obviously i am just too stupid to accept this simple premise, I thank you for condescending to try to enlighten me but i am simply questioning its validity in the thought making process, if tha positional play are intrinsically linked and must be understood in this context, ummmm i think.

Look at it this way:

You're hungry for success - starving in fact.
Sound strategic choices in your game are the water, soil & seeds of your crop, dude.
But tactics are the ripened fruit, man!
You gonna ignore that juicy orange & instead sew some more crops that may or may not grow to maturity?

That is in effect what you are doing if you get your thought process arse-about-face & don't put tactical considerations first & strategy second.

The most simple tactic is an unprotected piece or pawn or mate in 1. In your thought process you should look for captures, checks & tactics threats first.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so you have, if my arithmetic is correct, achieved in two years, on average a rating increase of 250 points per year, is this not the case. while i, by relegating tactical exercises to when i can be bothered and instead have sought to understand the underlying strategical importance of any moves that are made, have gained, let me see, just wait till ...[text shortened]... rated around 1800, and if such should be the case i am certainly coming to getcha! take heed.😛

it took 3 months doing CTS for me to get from learning how the pieces move to where you are now. and I did entertain similar misconceptions as you do about 'positional' moves. it's a common mistake among beginners, misunderstanding positional concepts. which induces 'positional' moves like doubling your opponent's pawns, when in reality you're opening files for lethal attacks and getting mated.


we're just trying to save you from wasting a lot of time studying the the wrong things for your situation.

You want to make it with a new partner.

This is your overarching goal.

You decide to take him/her to a meal at a restaurent then on to a concert and then drop him/her home and hope you get invited in....then take it from there...maybe nature will take it's course...you may even brush up your endgame skills in anticipation of a visit to the promised land.

This is your strategy.

Now the way that you speak to her, your body language and actions from moment to moment as you go for the meal, the concert, the drive home, the critical moment on the doorstep and who knows what from there on...these communications - words, gestures and so on.

These are your tactics.

So now maybe you can see that if you bungle the tactics.. (maybe by going on and on about what a fun time you had in the chess forums on rhp or something).. then he or she is likely to storm out of the restaurant and get the bus home alone...leaving the rest of your strategy in tatters.

Your Dad should have told you this!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Maddened rook, dude, deep deep inside I know you have a love of chess that reflects itself even in the banal questionings of a super noob like me. Your contribution has been immense, like a stalwart Dutch defence, unbreakable in your resolve you have endeavoured to show me the folly of my way, even providing references for your ideas and thoughts, t ...[text shortened]... u want me too look up the link with regard to the Principle of Tactical Dominance, is it not so.

Bingo! Actually, I wanted to hear you say that you've actually read the entire Hesiman Novice Nook article, not just opened it up. But I guess your answer is close enough, assuming you intend to give it a good read.

You see, the reason that I was not giving you any respect has nothing to do with your rating (who knows, my rating might be lower than yours). And it also has nothing to do with the fact that you're questioning conventional wisdom. It does, however, have everything to do with the fact that you were stubbornly refusing to look at good information when it was presented to you on a silver platter.

The onehandgann post just before my post that provided the Heisman link provided some reasoning why tactics should be looked at before positional considerations. Also, Squelchbelch (twice) mentioned pretty much the same concept. However, the Heisman article goes into great detail in addressing the issue that you raised to start these two threads.

But did you respond in a positve, receptive way to any of these posts? Nope. All you did was either ignore them entirely or reflexively start arguing. Instead of discussing onehandgann's post on tactics versus positional considerations or instead of reading the article that I linked to, you chose to respond to a different onehandgann post, and you proceeded to rip apart Silman. As far as I was concerned, your complete refusal to at least consider other people's input was an indication that you were not respecting our thoughts.

Robbie, seriously, if I came on to these forums with a premise that every single person disagreed with, including quite a few very highly rated players, I would at least give some serious consideration to the possibility that perhaps, just perhaps, I could be wrong, instead of everyone else being wrong. And, again, it's perfectly fine to question conventional wisdom, but you should strive to be logical about it and consider all perspectives. From what I've seen from your postings so far, all you're interested in is arguing for argument's sake.

Originally posted by wormwood
it took 3 months doing CTS for me to get from learning how the pieces move to where you are now. and I did entertain similar misconceptions as you do about 'positional' moves. it's a common mistake among beginners, misunderstanding positional concepts. which induces 'positional' moves like doubling your opponent's pawns, when in reality you're openin ...[text shortened]... you from wasting a lot of time studying the the wrong things for your situation.

lol, alas, alas my friend i am doomed, i thank you for your sincerity, the monster has been created, the electro/chemical impulses are in motion and as it consumes the creator i must suffer the same fate as Dr. Frankenstein, if all else fails i can always heed your words and return to CT-Art exercises, and if i should ever get good enough to challenge you, we can compare notes - kind regards Robbie.

Originally posted by Mad Rook
Bingo! Actually, I wanted to hear you say that you've actually read the entire Hesiman Novice Nook article, not just opened it up. But I guess your answer is close enough, assuming you intend to give it a good read.

You see, the reason that I was not giving you any respect has nothing to do with your rating (who knows, my rating might be lower than yours ...[text shortened]... seen from your postings so far, all you're interested in is arguing for argument's sake.

no dude this was never the intention, it just kind of transpired that way, as for not looking at the posts of others this is also untrue, i will look at the article you mention, the problem was that i was having to defend against so many fronts, it was like trying to invade Russia in winter time.

All I was trying to say was that my experience is different, I truly have got better by not focusing on tactics, not as good as you guys but definitely better than i was. Its like someone has a religious experience, (not that i have ever had any or know of anyone who has), who are we to say whether it was valid or not, real or otherwise, to the person it was quite real.

the most appealing thing about you guys was your sincerity, you really do think that I will waste my time, and I do appreciate your wisdom really I do, but i am like a rebellious teenager who in some sense needs to ignore their parents sound advice based on experience and wisdom, in order to find out for himself, thats all.

I leave you with the words of Dylan 'its just a ragged clown behind, i wouldn't pay it any mind, its just a shadow that you see, that hes chasing', hopefully we are still friends and should i incite such controversy again, you will perhaps attribute these words to anything i have to say. kind regards Robbie.

Originally posted by Mahout
You want to make it with a new partner.

This is your overarching goal.

You decide to take him/her to a meal at a restaurent then on to a concert and then drop him/her home and hope you get invited in....then take it from there...maybe nature will take it's course...you may even brush up your endgame skills in anticipation of a visit to the promised lan ...[text shortened]... e alone...leaving the rest of your strategy in tatters.

Your Dad should have told you this!

that is amazing....I have never heard positional vs tactical play...

I guess this brings a new meaning to creating a hole in the enemies position?

Originally posted by c guy1
that is amazing....I have never heard positional vs tactical play...

I guess this brings a new meaning to creating a hole in the enemies position?

you will probably be glad to learn that i am too physically and emotionally bereft to answer this, have fun my friend!

I guess I should say that I have never heard of tactical vs position described that way...I have heard the arguement

Originally posted by c guy1
I guess I should say that I have never heard of tactical vs position described that way...I have heard the arguement

That's because i made it up this afternoon.

Originally posted by Mahout
Well I always think a few "characters" in the forums add a little excitement...so long as we're not overrun with them. And the responses we get are often very concise and informative. No harm in testing the evidence.

That doesn't even make sense. SG meet mahout. 😠

Originally posted by eldragonfly
That doesn't even make sense. SG meet mahout. 😠

The term character here means someone with a lively or colourful personality who some people might find irritating whilst others may be amused by them. Hope this helps your comprehension.

On the subject of making sense I took a peek at your profile where you've posted this statement:

"Superficial donkey dripping from a dead dogs' eye.."

This is probably the closest I've come to using the emoticon with the bemused face.

ps...SG?

Originally posted by Mahout
The term character here means someone with a lively or colourful personality who some people might find irritating whilst others may be amused by them. Hope this helps your comprehension.

On the subject of making sense I took a peek at your profile where you've posted this statement:

"Superficial donkey dripping from a dead dogs' eye.."

This is probably the closest I've come to using the emoticon with the bemused face.

ps...SG?

It's the "overrun" statement that i took exception to, there are some "bad apples" here, but you can never have too many characters.
"Superficial donkey dripping from a dead dogs' eye.." just being silly is all. As far as comparing you to SG, sorry. 😛