A question of the topic of strategy and positional chess. Players can learn to stop dropping pieces, and they can learn to find nice combinations. But when it comes to positional understanding and any strategic ability they seem to suffer. Most players after hitting 1600 claim to have no problems (or little) with tactics, combinations, and simply not dropping pieces, but have a severe lack of positional and strategical chess. Why is this? It doesn't seem that one should be any harder than the other. Finding weak squares, where to focus an attack, how to open lines, and strong support points should really be as easy as finding a 3 or 4 move checkmate. Yet it seems that strategy always takes a back seat to tactics, and many players tell beginners "Study tactics. Tactics, tactics, tactics!!" But why not, "Study tactics and strategy"? One seems every bit as important as the other. Sure, if you're dropping pieces you aren't going to win. However, if your pieces are entombed, or sitting on bad squares then you aren't going to win either! So why do we stress tactics so much more than strategy? Is it because tactics are more exciting? Do we just think they are easier to learn and so should only focus on tactics? Do we think that low level players simply won't be able to make good use of strategical chess? Tactics should be easier to learn, but this doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn both as soon as you can! And no, low level players won't be able to make good use of strategical ideas right away, it takes practice, so why not start out early on in your chess development? You never hear somebody giving advice like "Study the middlegame, but not the endgame, because it's less exciting and may be harder to learn" So why would anybody take this stance with tactics and strategy? The themes of tactical and strategical play fit hand in hand, so shouldn't low-level players be studying both instead of just one?
Originally posted by kmac27Strategy is not usually learned before tactics. Are you telling me that you read "How to Reassess Your Chess" or a similar book before ever doing tactical puzzles?
strategy is usually learned before tactics. and also tactics win games but your strategy enables you to use your tactics. they are somewhat similar which makes them hard to define.
Originally posted by kmac27Pretty easy to define, pick up a tactics book and a strategy book and tell me how similar they look.
strategy is usually learned before tactics. and also tactics win games but your strategy enables you to use your tactics. they are somewhat similar which makes them hard to define.
It's not a matter of which is easier to learn.
Which do you learn first in school, math or chemistry/physics? You can't take full advantage of strategy or planning if you can't perceive the tactics that lurk behind every move to thwart or enable it. Tactics, like math, is the tool.
Also, I don't think strategy matters as much as tactics does. I think if you took two people and trained one only in tactics and one only in strategy, the tactics guy would win almost 100% of the time. You can probably just be a tactical beast and have a very crappy knowledge of strategy and still be about a 2000 ELO player. I know people like it. They know very little about strategy and opening theory, but they just see everything. It doesn't matter if you have more space and the two bishops, and have this genius plan for expanding on the queenside with b4-Nb3-c5! if you....hang that N on b3. Also, to answer your question, thinking strategically requires a much different skill set, and I think much more experience and feeling for the game. I mean, you have to play enough games to believe that you should expand on the side where your pawn chain points, or to know to open up the position for your two B's. Also, you have to have a critical thinking mind to gather up all these little bits and clues about the position, and then put them together to come up with a cohesive plan. To look at a board and see a two mover only takes a second because you only have to see one element of the position-maybe the fact that a king can be drawn to a square where it can be double attacked. You only have to look at maybe two pieces, your queen, and his king. When you are thinking about a plan, you have to think about the whole board. King safety, the relative value of all the minor pieces, what minor pieces they are, pawn structure, the center, where your heavy pieces should be, etc...And one more thing. I think the vast majority of chess games are decided through tactics. It seems to me even when looking at the top games that strategy only finds moves where the GM's can't calculate concretely what the best move might be. So maybe they come up with a plan and play this move accordingly, and then the next move their opponent either blunders or changes the position, and then maybe they have to calculate all over again. Players are brought up to see threats, because only then can they start to think strategically. So for a long time, we don't even bother thinking about imbalances or anything like that, since tactics override, and they still need to be worked on. I know for one thing is that in all my games, especially shorter time limit ones, I barely bother with planning. I just follow general middlegame principles and try to find moves to keep the initiative, and just calculate to make sure that what I am doing makes sense and doesn't lose. This post was way too long and poorly written, but it's 1:30, and I am not changing it.
No, tactics are basically forced lines that lead to a win for one side, such as a fork that wins a piece or a rook sacrifice that forces mate. Strategy is basically everything else that has to do with middlegame play. Creating weaknesses, controlling files, finding the best squares for your pieces to all work together, creating plans and carrying them out. Factoring all the different imbalances in the positions to come up with an idea of what you are supposed to be doing. I suppose even conjuring up attacks is a strategic topic.
A tactician is someone who knows what to do when there is something to do.
A strategical player is someone who knows what to do when there's nothing to do.
Strategy is useless without tactical ability(cause you will fail to win your winning positions) while tactics alone go a long way.Therefore you should learn tactics first.I think it's quite impossible to fully understand strategy without decent tactical ability.
The reason why players struggle with strategy is cause it's harder to teach,especially using books,and it's a bit more dull and boring than flashy tactics.Many players don't even get to the point of studying strategy happy as they are with the play they can produce by just using tactics.And that's ok too,not everyone takes the game equally serious.
That's my take on it anyway 🙂
Originally posted by SquelchbelchMaybe you should try thinking 3 moves ahead 😉
Im a casual player who's rating varies between 1200-1400 + I find the hardest part the mid game after move 15 or so.
A few basic openings can be learnt. Endgame strategy guides are quite common. Mid-game seems an enigma to me!