Up until recently I've only read books that were general strategy w/ emphasis on positional play (ie. sillman) along w/ some opening and closing books. I recently purchased my first tactics book and it seems to be helping a lot. What are the opinions here about the order of importance between positional understanding and tactics?
Originally posted by fexkorn
Up until recently I've only read books that were general strategy w/ emphasis on positional play (ie. sillman) along w/ some opening and closing books. I recently purchased my first tactics book and it seems to be helping a lot. What are the opinions here about the order of importance between positional understanding and tactics?
They are both important, but you usually begin studying tactics and after that you'll realise that you need studying positional and strategic play.
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think I got it the wrong way around. 🙄
They are both important, but you usually begin studying tactics and after that you'll realise that you need studying positional and strategic play.
About a year ago I did the assessment tests in chessmaster - the ones that estimate how good you are at various aspects of the game. The results I got told me that I was somewhere around 1650 level in strategy, but at around 1250 in tactics. 😕
Since then I've worked on my tactics somewhat. 😀
I do think that a good eye for tactics, and practicing tactics a lot can get you far, if you've got a basic understanding of positional considerations. Then again strategy and tactics are intimately interwoven; if you can manage to keep yourself in sound positions, and got a good general plan of attack, more opportunities for displaying your tactical skills arise.
If I had to do without the other, I'd rather ditch the strategy though. With good tactics you may still manage surprices, capitalize on your opponent's blunders, and with luck win some games, but if you've only got cunning plans of unrivalled brillance that all fail in the crucial execution stage, you'll make life a lot more difficult for yourself. Furthermore, I think that seeing tactics is essential for basic defense.
-Jarno
Of course tactics and strategy are both important.That goes without saying.But I think tactics are more important.What good is it to have a splendid position when you're unable to do anything with it 'cause you don't see the tactical opportunities.Or,having a splendid position and losing,because you missed a tactical shot your opponent had.
Originally posted by PyrrhoI think I fall in the same category. My relative positional understanding far exceeds my board vision and tactical ability.
I think I got it the wrong way around. 🙄
About a year ago I did the assessment tests in chessmaster - the ones that estimate how good you are at various aspects of the game. The results I got told me that I was somewhere around 1650 level in strategy, but at around 1250 in tactics. 😕
Since then I've worked on my tactics somewhat. 😀
I do think tha ...[text shortened]... or yourself. Furthermore, I think that seeing tactics is essential for basic defense.
-Jarno
My games w/ rhymester underscore this point. I always wind up trading punches w/ him and quite often end up on the losing side. He seems to be a free-wheeling tactical player (often w/ complete disregard to position)
i got an example to back up what everyone had just said, about a week ago i was playing my uncle and he knows nothing about statigy, positions, openings or anything but when it comes to tactics and seeing what your tacticly doing he is ranked, in chess master, 2100, nomatter what you try to pull on him he saw it two moves a go and is already running the the other direction, my advice....TACTICS!!!