http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
I made it to USCF 2022 primarily by playing relatively safe openings (London System, Caro-Kann, Slav Defense) and by trying to avoid errors. I played a "if I'm careful, my opponent will make a mistake before I do" approach, and it worked well enough for me to reach 2000. Recognize short tactical sequences and play Point Count Chess (a great old book by I. A. Horowitz and Geoffrey Mott-Smith) and expertdom will follow! (maybe)
Originally posted by gaychessplayerhey gay chess player dude, i have never heard of this system before, i suppose it is similar in respects in that you look at the advantages and disadvantages of every specific move, weighing them up to certain criteria.
I made it to USCF 2022 primarily by playing relatively safe openings (London System, Caro-Kann, Slav Defense) and by trying to avoid errors. I played a "if I'm careful, my opponent will make a mistake before I do" approach, and it worked well enough for me to reach 2000. Recognize short tactical sequences and play Point Count Chess (a great old book by I. A. Horowitz and Geoffrey Mott-Smith) and expertdom will follow! (maybe)
Interestingly i was following another post, the micheal da la maza one and someone posted a link to a chess fm presentation which discussed Michaels ideas. The presenter was saying that while doing tactical problems is certainly beneficial, rather than doing excessively difficult ones, he suggested practising the way the Russians do, fairly simple ones, over and over again. This seems to corroborate with what you are saying that the recognition of short tactical sequences is important, but so is a strategic analysis and awareness of the position. i will not labour the point, you are living proof of the validity and effectiveness of your system.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI hope I'm not incorrect, as I'm going on my memory here 😞 , but I think gaychessplayer has said (or implied) before that he's a faithful follower of Brother Danny Heisman's Russian Orthodox Church of Tactical Beliefs. (OK, that's my attempt at a humorous analogy, sorry.) So it's no surprise that what Heisman preaches is similar to gaychessplayer's method. However, I'm not sure that Heisman would necessarily advocate overly safe openings, but I also doubt that he'd object to them, either. I guess I have no opinions on the opening strategy. I guess any opening is OK if you know its principles well.
hey gay chess player dude, i have never heard of this system before, i suppose it is similar in respects in that you look at the advantages and disadvantages of every specific move, weighing them up to certain criteria.
Interestingly i was following another post, the micheal da la maza one and someone posted a link to a chess fm presentation whi ...[text shortened]... ill not labour the point, you are living proof of the validity and effectiveness of your system.
Also, I know that Heisman loves the "Point Count Chess" book (out of print, btw), but in the same breath he also tells you to ignore the book's point count system. The idea of a point count system was apparently borrowed from the game of bridge, and I guess Heisman doesn't believe in the point count system. But he loves the book from the perspective of an annotated games book. I haven't read the book, so I can only go by others' opinions of it. I'm surprised to hear that gaychessplayer appears to actually use the point count system. Maybe he could talk some more about that aspect of it.
Originally posted by Mad Rooklol 'your adherence to that ancient religion has not delivered the where abouts of the rebel base into our hands Lord Vader!', i thought your analogy was funny anyhow, i checked the book out, it gives a description of it on amazon.com, where you can also purchase a copy of this heretic novel. you will probably want to ignore my post as yet i have not visited your afore mentioned shrine to tactical awareness, no worries, it should be interesting to hear what gay chess player dude has got to say, uscf 2000+ with minimal tactics, how very interesting Mr. Bond
I hope I'm not incorrect, as I'm going on my memory here 😞 , but I think gaychessplayer has said (or implied) before that he's a faithful follower of Brother Danny Heisman's Russian Orthodox Church of Tactical Beliefs. (OK, that's my attempt at a humorous analogy, sorry.) So it's no surprise that what Heisman preaches is similar to gaychessplayer's method. ...[text shortened]... e the point count system. Maybe he could talk some more about that aspect of it.
I guess the part I don't understand in this debate is why positional play and tactics are treated as completely separate fields of study.
One of my first chess books was How to Win Chess Games Quickly by Fred Reinfeld. It was nothing but 20-move miniatures. I can imagine a lot of players calling this a tactics book, and yet it was full of positional truths as well. There were sections on how to win when the enemy Q is out of play, when the opponent develops badly, etc. For each game, there was a sypnosis of Black's mistakes and White's refutation, which explained clearly, in words, why certain moves were blunders [and the reasoning was as much positional as tactical - like "all of Black's first six moves are pawn moves - with not a piece developed!" and "Black places his Knight on e7 instead of the most natural square to defend the Kingside, f6"].
Even in Silman's books, which most would label "positional", there are sections on "the rules of combination", which show how to recognize telltale signs that a tactic is present. In some of the other sections, example games even show players using tactical tricks solely to improve their position [with no immediate win of material, or attack, etc.]
The point is that positional play and tactics go hand in hand. Tactics don't just pop up out of thin air. Even if you are on a 'tactics' website, you are still learning to recognize certain piece configurations that yield good tactical results!
Originally posted by SwissGambitHere's an example that may be helpful. Take the Austrian Attack against the Pirc Defense:
I guess the part I don't understand in this debate is why positional play and tactics are treated as completely separate fields of study.
One of my first chess books was How to Win Chess Games Quickly by Fred Reinfeld. It was nothing but 20-move miniatures. I can imagine a lot of players calling this a tactics book, and yet it was full of posit ning to recognize certain piece configurations that yield good tactical results!
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5!?
At first glance, the last move seems insane. Is Black really going to allow an early Queen trade and deprive himself of castling rights in the process?
6.dxc5 Qa5!
The point. Now after 7.cxd6? Nxe4! Black is hitting the pinned Nc3 three times and White's pawn center is gone. A more circumspect player will choose
7.Bd3 Qxc5.
So what was the result of Black's tactics based on the pin of Nc3? Has Black won any material? No. Has he increased his attacking chances against the White King? Not really. Has he improved his position by trading off a White center pawn and opening the c-file [like in the Sicilian]? You bet.
Correct.
I think Robbie was saying (in his own way) that tactics play
no part in a game and it was all strategy. Tactics flow from a
strategically won game very easily. Agreed.
But if your opponent is hell bent on tossing pieces at you and you
get involved in a tactical battle, hand to hand fighting, Then
positional play, strategic thoughts etc must take a back seat whilst
you fight for your life.
I've just been looking at a Korch game on another post - There is
such an inbalance in material that positional play will have to
wait until the position settles down.
I had that Fred book as well - it's a good book.
I think it's time we put this thread to bed.
It looks like we all agree with each other.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I thought that at first. Now I think he was just poking a bit of fun at all the people who scream 'tactics, tactics, tactics!' when asked what a new player should study.
I think Robbie was saying (in his own way) that tactics play
no part in a game and it was all strategy. Tactics flow from a
strategically won game very easily. Agreed.