1 edit
Originally posted by Ice Coldi stand, shamed at blaspheming against the great one, Sergey Tartakower, peace be upon him! do you hear any famous players whispering great moves into your mind?
May Tartakower have mercy on your soul. 😞
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. 😲
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy chess coach and mentor over the years name is Brad. I often ask myself WWBD. 😀
i stand, shamed at blaspheming against the great one, Sergey Tartakower, peace be upon him! do you hear any famous players whispering great moves into your mind?
When I was on acid once, I played a brilliant game. I swore I could hear Morphy at the time. It was just good acid IMO
if I miss one-movers in practically every game, how much of a threat might my opponent finding some esoteric attack depending solely on a square being 'strong' instead of 'neutral' create? I would guess the chances of that happening to be very very close to zero.
so I ignore such things 99% of the time.
Originally posted by Eladaryes this is fine, how are we to come to an evaluation like this? what to do?, we want to increase the pressure in the centre, a plan, like Rd2, Red1, dxe5 and Bh3 and we have sustained pressure on the centre. our rooks are coming to the seventh and we are on rook heaven! another plan might be to immediately launch a queen-side attack,
Robbie,
I'd probably play dxe5, giving me a semi-open file for my rook.
b2-b4, Qc2-b3, a2-a4, or try to create some weaknesses on the opponent's kingside by 1. Nh4 g6, and then to exploit them by beginning an attack: Qc2-d2, f2-f4, all are equally logical and valid, however the point is, that they consist of a general evaluation of the position followed by a concerted effort by all our forces, we are not like i dunno, the England football team, a one man army!😛
Originally posted by Ice Coldi never played on acid but i watched Pink Floyd live in Pompeii many times!, but depending on the type, i think your sense of heightened awareness may have made you paranoid to the extreme, thus conversely adding to your self control and carefulness, thus you must have played brilliantly for sure!
My chess coach and mentor over the years name is Brad. I often ask myself WWBD. 😀
When I was on acid once, I played a brilliant game. I swore I could hear Morphy at the time. It was just good acid IMO
Originally posted by greenpawn34My pal likes to talk smack at me, I always play 1.e4. He says, "The king is the most important piece, and here you make a big hole right in front of him!"
Speaking of strong/weak squares.
One of the stongest squares, the most proctected at the start of the game
is e2 (the other being d2).
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
The e2 pawn is protectd by 4 pieces.
We play 1.e4 and...
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq e3 0 1[/fen]
...it's on it's own. (just a thought).
Originally posted by Eladar"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
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.
- Sun Tzu, The art of War
...they go hand in hand...
No, it is different for both.
In war there is such a thing as strategic bombing. This is where you attempt to knock out your opponent's ability to wage war, be it though bombing factories, population centers or transportation systems.
There's no way a chess strategy can be used to such an end. There is no way to create war material in chess. There is no way to prevent your opponent from increasing the strength of his forces. In chess you can only 'go to war' with what you have. It is basically a single conflict where two forces are evenly matched. In military terms, you would only be using tactics.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI have no idea, still it seems quite correct
Is strategy and tactics in war the same thing as strategy and tactics in chess?
I don't think so.
edit: in chess you can't restrict your oponents pieces?
In a given position the forces are rarely evenly matched due to your positional (strategic) moves.