5 edits
Originally posted by Eladar"You go to war with the army you have." Donald Rumsfeld
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 ct where two forces are evenly matched. In military terms, you would only be using tactics.
What you're calling military strategy is really grand scale military spending and attacks on infrastructure it seems to me. What you're calling chess strategy is what Nimzowich calls positional elements.
A chess game is not a war. A chess game is a battle. Battles use strategy too.
A strategy in a chess game is equivalent to the English strategy at Azincourt; their strategy was to hold the high ground, entrench themselves, use their long range longbows to attack horses to limit enemy mobility, and to set tactical traps (like the muddy funnel the French got obliterated in) which they knew their extremely aggressive and careless opponent would probably fall into.
1 edit
Part of the reason I can easily spout off these positional concepts and yet maintain a 1300 rating is that you need tactics BEFORE position. Positional elements are what make tactics available, but if you don't have the tactics this doesn't help much.
My tactics are weak unless I really work hard mentally. Then they're ok, but it's exhausting to focus like that for me because I rarely do it due to laziness.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarWhat? Of course it does! It's a text-book example of strategy in chess.
Strategy has to do with weak squares and putting rooks on open files. It is looking for a good move when there is no tactic available.
Trading off material when a pawn up doesn't exactly fall in the same category.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ice ColdI was going by the definition of strategy that I've just quoted.
"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
There's no use discussing terms that are undefined.
Originally posted by EladarSo you're using only this definition of strategy here?
I was going by the definition of strategy that I've just quoted.
There's no use discussing terms that are undefined.
"Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do"
If you're going to be logically precise to the point of defining your terms then this definition is paradoxical.
9 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK, here's my best proper first analysis.
it seems to me Eladar, that is is not possible and its very dangerous to think of it like
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 wh ...[text shortened]... ppp1n2/4p3/2PPP3/2N2NP1/PPQ2PBP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 9[/fen]
(i give clue, there is no single answer)
Material: the dark squared Bishops have been traded off. Otherwise all there. Now, the Bishop that is the same color as you are playing (Black dark Bishop, light White Bishop) is considered a bit stronger in middlegame because it can hit two of the enemy King's castled Pawns, not just one. There's a tiny material advantage for White. With one Bishop gone on each side so is the Bishop pair; the remaining Bishop without his partner is now no better than a Knight for the most part.
Tempo: White 11, Black 10. You can see the extra tempo pretty easily; White's castled Rook has been developed to e1.
Space: White has 2 Pawns in the center to Black's 1. White's QN is better developed for center control than Black's. Both of White's Rooks are pressuring the center; neither of Black's Rooks are. Both sides' Bishops and Queens are pressuring the center.
White has the center space advantage. He also has the Queenside space advantage and a little bit of a Kingside space advantage. He also has a tiny material advantage.
White has significant advantages in all three areas (see Znosko-Borovsky's The Middle Game in Chess).
Nimzowitch positional elements: no open files, no Rooks on 7th, no outposts, no Pawn chains...but White can open the d-file or form a Pawn Chain by pushing the d-Pawn. If he goes the Pawn Chain route he needs to put heavy pressure on d5, d6 and e4 - especially d5. The fact that he's already advanced the c-Pawn is a good sign for the Chain as it will be needed to attack d6 or neutralize Black's cxd6. The Pawn Chain could lead to an Outpost on d5, a brutally central and advanced position.
Opening the file means White wants to get a Rook on the 7th. There's a Knight on that file which will make a fine target, slowing Black down while White prepares his artillery battery along the d file. White's tempo advantage suggests this is a good idea. White can pursue either option and maintain advantage.
Undefended pieces and Pawns (white) c2, c4 (black) a7, b7 and d7. The b7 Bishop looks especially vulnerable, white White's is backed by it's King.
Single defended P&P (white) a2, b2, h2, f3, g2 (black) d6, g7.
These two groups of points are weak points in each position. Target the enemy's and protect your own.
Now analyze what's going on on each line. See which diagonals are controlled or empty - remember dark squares are in some ways safer for both sides due to the lack of those Bishops.
Look at what files and ranks major pieces are on. Notice that both of White's Rooks can be Rook lifted to the 3rd Rank, while neither of Black's can be.
Notice that the White Queen and a Black Rook are on C; a Black Queen and White Rook are on e. A white Rook is on d, and a Black one on f. All Rooks are on back Ranks, both Queens on their second Rank. Notice the White Queen aiming at the Black King's position. Both Bishops struggle over the long light diagonal.
OK I'm bored now. Notice I've done zero tactical analysis.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungyes, this is very comprehensive, therefore what plan would you try to utilise based on your analysis.
OK, here's my best proper first analysis.
Material: the dark squared Bishops have been traded off. Otherwise all there. Now, the Bishop that is the same color as you are playing (Black dark Bishop, light White Bishop) is considered a bit stronger in middlegame because it can hit two of the enemy King's castled Pawns, not just one. There's a tiny ...[text shortened]... h Bishops struggle over the long light diagonal.
(continued with edits)
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt this point, I'm leaning toward dxe5 with a view to getting a Rook on d7 followed by an attack on the castled King.
yes, this is very comprehensive, therefore what plan would you try to utilise based on your analysis.
The Pawn chain situation could be made really annoying if Black plays b4.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf it was good enough for Tartakower, it should be good enough for both me and you.
So you're using only this definition of strategy here?
"Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do"
If you're going to be logically precise to the point of defining your terms then this definition is paradoxical.
As far as being snippy, it was aimed at only one person. I was just making a useless comment about a useless comment.
Strategy can mean a lot of different things. In this thread it has to do with making a good move when no tactic is available. To try to bring in other definitions just to argue is a waste of time.
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarYour being snippy is aimed at anyone who compares chess strategy with military strategy. That includes me as you made clear when you told me to "Feel free to play "I'm a general" too.".
If it was good enough for Tartakower, it should be good enough for both me and you.
As far as being snippy, it was aimed at only one person. I was just making a useless comment about a useless comment.
Strategy can mean a lot of different things. In this thread it has to do with making a good move when no tactic is available. To try to bring in other definitions just to argue is a waste of time.
It's fine for me and you, unless we choose to carefully define the term in that way and only that way for the purpose of a structured argument. Your insisting that the Tartakower definition be the only one used in this thread suggests you're moving into the realm of logic. That quote was not appropriate for logic and I doubt Tartakower ever used it in a formal logical setting. I doubt the man ever insisted all other definitions of strategy were irrelevant to whatever he was discussing.
EDIT - "If it's good enough for Tartakower..." is known as an Argument From Authority, a logical fallacy.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungApparently its an exercise from Grandmaster A. Kotov and is in a course regarding strategy that i am studying at a very basic level at present. ( i myself know very little about chess strategy). There is also another element not on the board, that of personal style, which is dictated through simple personal preference and perhaps the way we are feeling. If we prefer a quite game, then trying to create weakness is the way, if we prefer sharper game then pressuring the centre or immediately beginning an attack on queen side is way to go. Its an interesting exercise to say the least, for i know i tend to think simply in one move scenario's, yes, that my candidate move, because it looks strong because of this, that and the next thing and that's it. One moves are not very good, for they generally always seem to get refuted!
At this point, I'm leaning toward dxe5 with a view to getting a Rook on d7 followed by an attack on the castled King.
The Pawn chain situation could be made really annoying if Black plays b4.
This has immensely increased my joy of looking at other games, for they contain these elements and to try to determine how the great players developed their strategy, i dunno, its more satisfying than a tactical shot. i am always saddened when a tactical shot ends the game abruptly.