1 edit
There are 2 ways to win. Like a Swashbuckling pirate, or a mousy little clerk.
The pirate wants to slash, and kill, the clerk wants to hide. He's scared of the pirate. So he finds ways to exchange the pieces safely, and then uses his vast knowledge of pawns, to make a queen.
Games by Pal Benko are a good example of this.
If you are a pirate, you live and die by the sword.
If you prefer to avoid the blood shed, and trade down to an nice peacfull endgame, then no need to study tactics.
Easier said then done of courrse, but you can steer the game to your liking if you want.
Originally posted by Grandmouster#1 and utmost...."when in doubt, push a pawn". The greatest chessplayer that
Post help for the needy chess players here.
Give insight into the mysterys of the worlds most fascinating game.
Ask questions, post games.
Us know-it-alls will try to answer to the best of our abilitys
ever lived said that,..Kreshnivkovsonikkovski of Poland.
Originally posted by GrandmousterThere's ALWAYS need to study tactics!!! Tactics can pop up in any game, no matter how sedate the position appears.
There are 2 ways to win. Like a Swashbuckling pirate, or a mousy little clerk.
The pirate wants to slash, and kill, the clerk wants to hide. He's scared of the pirate. So he finds ways to exchange the pieces safely, and then uses his vast knowledge of pawns, to make a queen.
Games by Pal Benko are a good example of this.
If you are a pirate, you li ...[text shortened]... ics.
Easier said then done of courrse, but you can steer the game to your liking if you want.
Originally posted by welsharnieI've ben studing tactics for years, puzzles, games, software, blah, blah. This is overated. You need positional, and fundimental understanding to complement the tactics.
There's ALWAYS need to study tactics!!! Tactics can pop up in any game, no matter how sedate the position appears.
A sharpshoter, can win many games with attacks, and lose tons in a bad endgame.
I watched a guy who used to be 1200. (i used to give him time odds in blitz)
take down a Park hustler who is at least 2300 blitz. He was playing solid positional chess, and was a pawn or 2 up in every game.
The master hustler was searching for tactics, and getting grinded down.
I didnt say dont study tactics. I said you can be good in any phase of the game, and steer it to your style.
Thats how many players play. If you dont like tactics, be positional.
Tactics will flow from good positions.
Originally posted by Grandmouster'If you prefer to avoid the blood shed, and trade down to an nice peacfull endgame, then no need to study tactics. '
I've ben studing tactics for years, puzzles, games, software, blah, blah. This is overated. You need positional, and fundimental understanding to complement the tactics.
A sharpshoter, can win many games with attacks, and lose tons in a bad endgame.
I watched a guy who used to be 1200. (i used to give him time odds in blitz)
take down a Park hustler ...[text shortened]... players play. If you dont like tactics, be positional.
Tactics will flow from good positions.
That's where you say it. Basically 'You don't need to study tactics if you play positionally'.
If you cannot master basic tactics, you will always be a weak player. Most games between people 1500 and below are won and lost in tactics, ruining your opponents pawn structure for an ending is useless if you then lose a piece before the endgame to a tactic.
Your man who beat a hustler, although you say he was playing positionally, must have been quite tactically adept. If he was playing a 2300 looking for tactics, he must have been able to spot all the tactics and prevent the 2300 from getting a chance to play one, which requires very good tactics in itself.
Originally posted by welsharnieYour missing the whole gist of my post.
'If you prefer to avoid the blood shed, and trade down to an nice peacfull endgame, then no need to study tactics. '
That's where you say it. Basically 'You don't need to study tactics if you play positionally'.
If you cannot master basic tactics, you will always be a weak player. Most games between people 1500 and below are won and lost in tactics, ...[text shortened]... nt the 2300 from getting a chance to play one, which requires very good tactics in itself.
The point is, dont get hung up on "tactics, tactics, tactics"
This is a one demenitional aspect of the game.
If a beginner studied nothing but positional basics, and pawn structures, endgames, square strategy, and some tactics, maybe a few puzzlebooks. I bet this player would advance faster then the "tactics, tactics, tactics" player.
Tactics spring from initive. How do you get this initive? Understanding chess.
How many masters read 'My system?" many!
My point is, if you trade combos with everyone, you will get a decent rating, but the one who concentrates on all aspects of the game, will be light years ahead.
1 edit
Originally posted by GrandmousterAH HAHAHAHAHAH!! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Game 1683218
Post help for the needy chess players here.
Give insight into the mysterys of the worlds most fascinating game.
Ask questions, post games.
Us know-it-alls will try to answer to the best of our abilitys
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugAH HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Smaug, didn't you know Grandmouster was a master in disguise? His wife from Ecuador was an A-class chess player from Manhattan Chess Club. Hear ye! Hear ye! Bow to the Grand Mouse!
I need ALOT of help! But your rating is lower than mine, are you sure you can help?
Originally posted by GrandmousterTactics are a one dimensional aspect of the game??? Hmmm. It's funny that chess is 95% tactics and endgame and the rest is opening theory and positional strategy. I didn't say this. Only 3-time U.S. Champion Grandmaster Lev Alburt said this in his Comprehensive Chess course. Maybe that's what you need to study, Grandmouster, because the tactics I pulled on you were simple and not complex at all.
Your missing the whole gist of my post.
The point is, dont get hung up on "tactics, tactics, tactics"
This is a one demenitional aspect of the game.
If a beginner studied nothing but positional basics, and pawn structures, endgames, square strategy, and some tactics, maybe a few puzzlebooks. I bet this player would advance faster then the "tactics, ...[text shortened]... ating, but the one who concentrates on all aspects of the game, will be light years ahead.
Originally posted by GrandmousterI never said get hung up on tactics, I was merely pointing out that you said if you were positional, you would need to study hardly any tactics, and I was posting to say I beleive that you need a solid tactical grounding in any sort of chess. Like it or not, tactics are the bread and butter of almost all games between weak players and beginners, whoever loses will do so almost certainly because of a tactic. The only endgame knwoledge a beginner needs is one or two basic principles (usually of R&P endgames) and basic mating techniques (K&Q, K&R etc). He may lose a couple of points because of this over the course of many games, but he will gain many more due to tactical knowledge.
Your missing the whole gist of my post.
The point is, dont get hung up on "tactics, tactics, tactics"
This is a one demenitional aspect of the game.
If a beginner studied nothing but positional basics, and pawn structures, endgames, square strategy, and some tactics, maybe a few puzzlebooks. I bet this player would advance faster then the "tactics, ...[text shortened]... ating, but the one who concentrates on all aspects of the game, will be light years ahead.
In addition, I believe some basic opening theory is useful too, as getting out of the opening in one piece is quite useful too!
Once the player has learnt all of this, and is developing, then the more positional aspects, and endgames, can be studied much more effectively.
Final point: You don't need an initiative to unleash a tactic, you can have played good chess for 30-40 moves, making a weakness, and then starting to exploit it, but you miss one tactic, and game over.
Originally posted by GrandmousterWhy don't you tell that to all the Russian "monsters" that only studied tactics in their chess and little opening theory, and are clearly monsters today!
Your missing the whole gist of my post.
The point is, dont get hung up on "tactics, tactics, tactics"
This is a one demenitional aspect of the game.
If a beginner studied nothing but positional basics, and pawn structures, endgames, square strategy, and some tactics, maybe a few puzzlebooks. I bet this player would advance faster then the "tactics, ...[text shortened]... ating, but the one who concentrates on all aspects of the game, will be light years ahead.
Originally posted by GrandmousterOK, I'm kinda new to the study of chess, though I've been playing for a few years. I understand how to study tactics and endgames, but how to study "positional basics, and pawn structures, square strategy"? Thanks.
If a beginner studied nothing but positional basics, and pawn structures, endgames, square strategy, and some tactics ...
Originally posted by bassoSeirawan has a series of books starting with "Winning Chess" Then there are endgames, tactics, etc.
OK, I'm kinda new to the study of chess, though I've been playing for a few years. I understand how to study tactics and endgames, but how to study "positional basics, and pawn structures, square strategy"? Thanks.
I was thinking, the puzzle books are ok, but dont give a person a whole picture. Some of these positions will never come up in your games.
Some come up a lot.
Why does someone stumble into them in the first place?
Lack of understanding of the game!
There are many nuances that if your weak in, your weak period.
Akekhine was brilliant in tactics, but weak in positional.
He studied more about that, and went on to great things.
Tal was an attacker, and a sac'er. but was strong positionaly as well.
Kasparov was positionaly outplayed, by stronger GM's when he was an attacker. He got more training in the strategies of the game, and dominated.
I would suggest going over complete games of the early masters, then later GM's. Start withejust the moves without anotations.
Later play solitare chess, where you try to guess the moves.
Get a feel for their styles, and ideas, and along the way you will pick up pattern rcognition, with more details, then a "mate in 2 or 3" position