Powershaker opines, "Get your tactics first. Worry about openings after you achieve an 1800 rating strength. 99% of chess is tactics."
Everybody onboard with this? Chess is 99% tactics, only 1% strategy? I'm rather new to the study of chess. Best way to work on one's tactical game is solving chess problems?
Originally posted by basso Powershaker opines, "Get your tactics first. Worry about openings after you achieve an 1800 rating strength. 99% of chess is tactics."
Everybody onboard with this? Chess is 99% tactics, only 1% strategy? I'm rather new to the study of chess. Best way to work on one's tactical game is solving chess problems?
I am not on board. I think it's 70% tactics, 30% strategy.
Strategy is very important. I believe that the proper strategical knowledge can be applied in all areas of chess, thereby limiting the necessary study. If you you know nothing about strategy, you'll flop in the opening, have to direction in the middlegame, and flop unless your opponent gives you material, and flop in the endgame. You need strategy in order to create tactics.
I believe that chess instruction has become too focused on a single dimension, when chess sucess relies on integration. Tactics can't win you a chess game by themselves.
Tactics is the strategy of winning pieces and smiting the enemy King. Beginners benefit from learning tactics early on because they are the most obvious ways to win chess games. However, against good opposition, you need more subtle methods of winning.
Tactics are important. Strategy is important. Openings are important. All integral parts of the game: so you can make the best move possible each turn. You learn from pattern repetition and by analyzing your games, learning from your mistakes. Or better yet, analyze master games, and make sure you understand why the master made the move he did.
In your games, try to get the center pawns out, knights, bishops...then castle...if you can develop your pieces, control the center squares and not make obvious blunders...you're on your way on becoming a better chessnut.
Originally posted by exigentsky What do you guys mean by strategy? Can you give me examples, perhaps a link giving me instruction on good chess strategy,
I'm a novice in chess, sorry for these dumb requests.
A good strategy would be to actually make some moves. Not many players improve by making forum posts.
I thought about this for a while and I think for me chess is 50% tactics and 50% strategy. But in order to play good strategical chess you have to know the tactics first....
The point is that if your tactics aren't up to scratch your carefully worked out strategy to gain control of the d4 square will end in tatters when you lose a knight to a pawn fork. At a certain level, which I admit I'm not at yet, knowing tactics is more defensive.
The thing is, in the early going you are ok just playing a basic basic strategy:
1. Develop you pieces
2. castle,
3. play to control the center
4. snap up any material available
5. attack the enemy king
You don't need an in depth opening repitoire (don't repeat mistakes). Just know enough tactics to grab any material available, and not to drop any of your own. At 1200, study endgames as well until you win the won games and fight as best possible in the lost ones. Around 1400, start looking at pawn structures, good vrs. bad bishop and how your middlegame translates into an endgame (won/lost). Around 1800 you probably have your tactics down and you can move into further middlegame strategy, also start studying openings more thoughly.
Thats my theory. Mind you I am only 1500 but I don't study openings much. I may if I'm in the mood play 10 moves out of a book just to achieve a reasonable position, but usually I just play things other people played against me which I liked.
Asking if tactics is more important than strategy is like saying when you run, is your right leg more important than your left? To get anywhere you have to learn all facets of the game. Even Capablanca, who studied only endgames, said when he reached a certain level, his opening shortfall was obvious. You can see in his early match in Cuba against Corzo (which he won) Corzo, who was a very good opening analyst kept catching him in opening lines he (Corzo) was familiar with. When Capa got into an even or slightly inferior end game, the future world champion would win or get at least a draw. I think all facets should be balanced. Studying tactics is good, but not in isolation. The person who said chess is 99% tactics was just wrong in my opinion.
Tactics
28 Nov '05 02:07
Back to Top