Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 07 Feb '07 23:24
    Are tactics less important in correspondence chess relative to the importance of strategy, endgame, etc?

    I think it is, because in correspondence games people are far less likely to blunder, and this places more importance on the other aspects of chess.
  2. 07 Feb '07 23:45
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Are tactics less important in correspondence chess relative to the importance of strategy, endgame, etc?

    I think it is, because in correspondence games people are far less likely to blunder, and this places more importance on the other aspects of chess.
    Missing a royal fork, a tactic, is a blunder. A royal blunder.

    I'm playing from work right now and almost missed one. Caught it just before I hit submit on an inferior move.


    Tactics are just as important, if not moreso than any other aspect in CC.
  3. 07 Feb '07 23:46
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Are tactics less important in correspondence chess relative to the importance of strategy, endgame, etc?

    I think it is, because in correspondence games people are far less likely to blunder, and this places more importance on the other aspects of chess.
    B©
  4. 08 Feb '07 01:08
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Are tactics less important in correspondence chess relative to the importance of strategy, endgame, etc?

    I think it is, because in correspondence games people are far less likely to blunder, and this places more importance on the other aspects of chess.
    If people play correspondence slowly, and give the board a through look, then all tactics should be seen, and thus strategy gains more importance. In reality, this only happens at the top levels, and the rest of us still live and die by our tactics.
  5. 08 Feb '07 03:42
    Originally posted by Teshuvah
    Missing a royal fork, a tactic, is a blunder. A royal blunder.

    I'm playing from work right now and almost missed one. Caught it just before I hit submit on an inferior move.


    Tactics are just as important, if not moreso than any other aspect in CC.
    I'm sure your employer will be glad to know how hard at work you are!
  6. 08 Feb '07 09:30
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    I'm sure your employer will be glad to know how hard at work you are!
    He could be the boss.
  7. 08 Feb '07 22:29
    I think this is definitely true. My tactics, I think, are good enough to keep me from losing due to tactical blunders, I still have trouble winning, though, and I think this is probably because my strategy is horrible. This is only what I tell myself, however, and chances are I'm just rationalizing my inability to play well.
  8. Standard member Dies Irae
    I Love U
    08 Feb '07 23:03
    Tactics are still important because though they don't have to end in a gain of material, you can still use sophisticated tactics to gain positional advantages that less skilled players would miss.

    Tactics also put threats into play which the opponent must first figure out and then respond to, raising the chance for an error that can be capitalized on.
  9. 09 Feb '07 12:08
    Originally posted by chesskid001
    Are tactics less important in correspondence chess relative to the importance of strategy, endgame, etc?

    I think it is, because in correspondence games people are far less likely to blunder, and this places more importance on the other aspects of chess.
    I don't think they are less important. You just have more time to look for them. Tactics are still just as important.
  10. 11 Feb '07 00:11
    I have played a lot of CC. Tactics are quite important. However, I think the "tactics vs strategy" all depends upon how many games you are playing at one time and if those games are by Email, webserver, or the old fashioned snail mail.

    If you're playing just a few CC games, I'd say tactical errors are less likelty to happen. However, if you're involved in 25 games, it's easy to get in a hurry to move (yes, even in CC) and make a tactical blunder.

    Tactics and strategy go hand-in-hand.

    T.H.
  11. 11 Feb '07 05:46
    Originally posted by mrjonesvich321
    I think this is definitely true. My tactics, I think, are good enough to keep me from losing due to tactical blunders, I still have trouble winning, though, and I think this is probably because my strategy is horrible. This is only what I tell myself, however, and chances are I'm just rationalizing my inability to play well.
    Taking a quick look at your losses, all that I saw were due to tactical blunders.
  12. Standard member bosintang
    perpetualEditMonkey
    11 Feb '07 06:08 / 3 edits
  13. Standard member bosintang
    perpetualEditMonkey
    11 Feb '07 06:10
    Originally posted by THarris


    Tactics and strategy go hand-in-hand.

    This is key here.

    Even at top levels, you might not see opponents making tactical blunders, meaning falling for tactical traps, but even the threat of tactics can create or exploit weaknesses in your opponents positions, or at the least, create imbalances.