I'm not too familiar with it. I think that strategy is good to know once you get a handle on tactics. From what I know, strategy comes before tactics so logically, the tactics come at the end of the strategy. Is this correct?
I know that certain positions can offer strategical advantages but I don't know what these positions are! If good strategy leads to good tactics then I want to know good strategy...
I am assuming that there are squares on the board that are important to controll in order to gain an advantage and that these squares differ between games. How can I better recognize what these squares are?
Originally posted by ChessJesterRead my Need help --- 1400 thread, page 2. You should pick up enough strategy from there for now.
I'm not too familiar with it. I think that strategy is good to know once you get a handle on tactics. From what I know, strategy comes before tactics so logically, the tactics come at the end of the strategy. Is this correct?
I know that certain positions can offer strategical advantages but I don't know what these positions are! If good strategy lead ...[text shortened]... d that these squares differ between games. How can I better recognize what these squares are?
The rest you get from reading books.
As for the squares, the usual control the middle, put rook on open files, bishops on long diagonals etc...
That's basically all there is.
Look for squares that can't be defended by a pawn.
For example, lets say a game starts out like this.
1. e4 c5
2. c4
Now the d4 square is undefended. It would be a good place to put a bishop or even better a knight.
Whenever I can't find tactical threats I search for non-pawn protected squares.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by ChessJesterGood strategy is all about the pieces and how you make them work for you, trade your bad pieces preserve your good pieces. Aim to arange your pawns to compliment your pieces.
I'm not too familiar with it. I think that strategy is good to know once you get a handle on tactics. From what I know, strategy comes before tactics so logically, the tactics come at the end of the strategy. Is this correct?
I know that certain positions can offer strategical advantages but I don't know what these positions are! If good strategy lead ...[text shortened]... d that these squares differ between games. How can I better recognize what these squares are?
Stratagy requires the use of tactics, but tactics don't require a stratagy.
The word "stratagy" is usually reserved for a long term goal--otherwise it is pointless. Take an example from life. Let's say you have a plan for getting to work. Now, for me, that plan involves getting into my car and driving down the street. This simple plan is not complex enough or long term enough to merit the use of the word "stratagy." (It is tactics, though!) Now, if you are a student and your plan for "getting to work" involves taking a barrage of classes, passing exams, landing an intership and getting experience, networking and finding good references, researching all the possible career paths, et cetera, then this plan, once all the details are filled in, certainly counts as a stratagy. Yet still all the steps along the way are still tactics.
Hope this helps in your understanding of the term and how stratagy is used.