Originally posted by EladarGoing further back I saw he was around 1700,yes.
If my memory is correct, he did have a much higher rating, but he didn't like the amount of work it took to keep that rating.
Somehow some people can achieve that level and higher without putting forth a great amount of mental anguish.
I have the feeling you're hinting at something I'm missing 😕
Originally posted by EladarExploiting strong/weak squares?
I'm not hinting at anything. I'm just saying that it doesn't seem to help a whole lot.
For a majority of chess players, exploiting it in a way that results in consistant victories just doesn't happen.
You're right.They are just one factor in the position,dealing with all factors is usually not an easy task.
But knowing about it should help 🙂
Knowing what to do about or to weak squares should help. But it seems that most people only know how to go about recognizing it at best. But even so, as you mentioned there are other areas on chess that are equally important, if not more important.
I am reminded of something I read in one of Purdy's books. He commented that one of the players in a game he was using as an example was the Australian champion. He commented the the guy was weak in chess strategy, but extremely strong when it came to tactics. If he had been extremely strong in strategy, but weak in tactics he'd never have won the Australian championship.
Originally posted by EladarObviously no tactical weak player can reach a high standard.
Knowing what to do about or to weak squares should help. But it seems that most people only know how to go about recognizing it at best. But even so, as you mentioned there are other areas on chess that are equally important, if not more important.
I am reminded of something I read in one of Purdy's books. He commented that one of the players in a game ...[text shortened]... emely strong in strategy, but weak in tactics he'd never have won the Australian championship.
Originally posted by Eladarbetter tactics
But a strategically weak player can reach high levels. My comments in this thread has been based on the idea of how things translate to winning chess games. What's going to help me to defeat an opponent more consistantly. What is actually going to show a difference?
1 edit
Originally posted by Ajuinthe main difference is, i think, that a tactic is a single idea, manifest through a combination, precisely calculated. Strategy is a whole series of different factors, analysed, evaluated and a plan of action formed based on these constituent parts. there seems to me to be an interdependency of one and the other. for example take the famous bishops sacrifice on h7 (the greek gift), its a tactic based on an analysis and an evaluation of the positional factors, that being the pawn cover in front of our opponents king and the other necessary necessary components to make it work, open diagonal to h7, queen and knight in the vicinity as well. This is a simple pattern, that those who are experienced can readily recognise. Also a positional or strategic move also needs to be checked and validated through any variations which may throw its success into jeopardy, thus there is an interaction between tactics and strategy, although we somehow think of them independently, it seems to me that you cannot have one without the other.
better tactics
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do, strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do” – Savielly Tartakower
the main difference is, i think, that a tactic is a single idea, manifest through a combination, precisely calculated. Strategy is a whole series of different factors, analysed, evaluated and a plan of action formed based on these constituent parts. there seems to me to be an interdependency of one and the other. for example take the famous bishop ...[text shortened]... somehow think of them independently, it seems to me that you cannot have one without the other.
Originally posted by Ice Coldahhh yes Ice man, but are we to think of them independently of interdependently, that is the greatest issue facing patzers like me at present! there is nothing worse than conceiving a cunning fox like plan to have it spoiled by some 'crappy' pin at the zenith of its culmination, and there is nothing worse than trying to execute a tactical melee, when the positional requirements suggest otherwise! has it not been your experience my friend? it is the bane of my life!
"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do, strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do” – Savielly Tartakower
Robbie,
Going to the definition of Tactics vs Strategy given by Ice Cold, you can definitely have tactics without strategy and strategy without tactics. Your opponent can blunder into something that allows you to do something or you could blunder into it. Someone strong at tactics will see that there is something to do.
While someone who is strong with strategy could have things to do all game long, but never see it, therefore continues to make moves that you make when there is nothing else better.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy experience is, I suck at chess, if I didn't I'd be a GM. 😀
ahhh yes Ice man, but are we to think of them independently of interdependently, that is the greatest issue facing patzers like me at present! there is nothing worse than conceiving a cunning fox like plan to have it spoiled by some 'crappy' pin at the zenith of its culmination, and there is nothing worse than trying to execute a tactical melee, whe ...[text shortened]... nts suggest otherwise! has it not been your experience my friend? it is the bane of my life!
They go hand in hand, tactics and stategy. If one doesn't seem to apply, look at the other for ideas.
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarMay Tartakower have mercy on your soul. 😞
Robbie,
Going to the definition of Tactics vs Strategy given by Ice Cold, you can definitely have tactics without strategy and strategy without tactics. Your opponent can blunder into something that allows you to do something or you could blunder into it. Someone strong at tactics will see that there is something to do.
While someone who is strong ...[text shortened]... never see it, therefore continues to make moves that you make when there is nothing else better.
Just kidding pal, you and RC made some very valid points. 🙂
Oft times I see a statement here or in Spirituality, and a quote pops into my head.
I hear voices. 😲
4 edits
Originally posted by Eladarit seems to me Eladar, that is is not possible and its very dangerous to think of it like
Robbie,
Going to the definition of Tactics vs Strategy given by Ice Cold, you can definitely have tactics without strategy and strategy without tactics. Your opponent can blunder into something that allows you to do something or you could blunder into it. Someone strong at tactics will see that there is something to do.
While someone who is strong ...[text shortened]... never see it, therefore continues to make moves that you make when there is nothing else better.
that. For when we play players higher rated opponents than ourselves , they make
fewer and fewer tactical mistakes for us to exploit, if we are still thinking tactically,
then shall we not simply make aimless moves? please consider this position,
on what would you base your next move, white to play?
(i give clue, there is no single answer)