- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI did just that, only worked on tactics slowly but surely over 14 months or so. Tactics became real sharp, but unfortunately it ruined my overall game because subconsciously I altered my middlegame style into something radically different from my more conservative playing style. So yes you could win more by studying tactics, but in the long run, it is better to learn overall fundamentals.
Take two 1200 players and have one of them study only Silman's Reasses Your Chess and have the other one study only tactics. After six months have them play each other. I'm almost certain that the player who studied only tactics would demolish the Silman-only reader.
My point is that strategy is subordinate to tactics, and can only be understood in the light of tactics.
Originally posted by SquelchbelchHow is that so when strategy is planning and GM's always say to have a plan at all times, they also say that you won't get many tactical shots unless you play with a plan?
Everyone knows you look for tactics first. Strategy is secondary.
This is a basic truth.
ps. I don't doubt what you say, this is just an honest question.
Originally posted by tomtom232Move by move tactical considerations must come first.
How is that so when strategy is planning and GM's always say to have a plan at all times, they also say that you won't get many tactical shots unless you play with a plan?
ps. I don't doubt what you say, this is just an honest question.
If your opponent has just moved his knight to a square where he can fork king & queen next move, then developing your pawn structure or moving the rook to the 1/2 open file are secondary things.
Originally posted by Squelchbelchyah, but what if you have 5 or so "remedies"? How do you choose? Remember there are no tactical refutations to either line. You most always have strategy in mind, else all moves are equal. So strategy guides tactics, and vice versa.
Move by move tactical considerations must come first.
If your opponent has just moved his knight to a square where he can fork king & queen next move, then developing your pawn structure or moving the rook to the 1/2 open file are secondary things.
Originally posted by Zander 88You may have different remedies to, for instance get out of the fork & weigh them according to the strategy that you wish to employ, but the point is that the over-riding factor is the tactic. Counteracting it is the first priority.
yah, but what if you have 5 or so "remedies"? How do you choose? Remember there are no tactical refutations to either line. You most always have strategy in mind, else all moves are equal. So strategy guides tactics, and vice versa.
The example I gave was prophylactic but it hold true for your own moves as well.
You must look for tactics to use in attack first, once you've done your checks after your opponent's move.
A pin, skewer, discovered check or fork etc can win the game in one move.
I'd concede that strategy comes first in as much as deciding which line of a particular opening to use, but that's the only time it should be a priority over tactics.
1 edit
Ok, I somewhat concede. We are not computers though. We can't simply brute force every variation. We must have a goal/plan in mind. Strategy helps keep our tactics in focus. So, when we look at our candidate moves, all of those in some way advance are strategy in mind.
For example, lets say you are in check. You look at one move. Now, you must see your opponent's reply. Here, he could have 20 possible replies. But, we don't calculate every single one. We look at ones that are forcing, and not forcing but strategically important.
Ed. I guess to make clearer, I will say this. You would say tactics are basically forcing moves. There are quiet(strategic) moves that are more forcing than forcing(tactical) moves, if you get my drift. It's like creating a mating net. I think these two terms are inseperable in a game.
Originally posted by Zander 88Strategy is about creating long-term improvements in position.
Ok, I somewhat concede. We are not computers though. We can't simply brute force every variation. We must have a goal/plan in mind. Strategy helps keep our tactics in focus. So, when we look at our candidate moves, all of those in some way advance are strategy in mind.
For example, lets say you are in check. You look at one move. Now, you must see your ...[text shortened]... y drift. It's like creating a mating net. I think these two terms are inseperable in a game.
Tactics are about short-term gains - often decisive.
I instinctively find myself always looking for the tactic first.
Maybe it's down to the style of my play that the openings I use have pretty definite strategic aims - ie opening the game up, so ironically tactics are pushed to the front even more.
A similarly rated 1.d4 player probably has a much more refined sense of strategy than me.
The post that was quoted here has been removedNot to derail this thread, just wanted to add that this book is pretty good (Reinfields 1001), I just purchased it (my first chess book)
You will recognize some obvious things you may have been missing after looking through just the first 50 puzzles...
very well put together.
I'll have to find Polgar's book now too I think...
-J
Originally posted by bassoThat's a bit extreme. You can't magic a tactic out of thin air if none exists.
Tactics are for when you know what to do. Strategy is for when you don't know what to do.
I'd say tactics should come first in the thought process. That's what I meant earlier.
If no tactic exists in any given position then strategy can be taken-up again.