Is Practical Chess Tactics and Only Tactics?

penandpaper0089 edited

A well known saying is that tactics are most important until you get to 2000. Even Magnus Carlsen in a Reddit AMA says the same thing:

[–]fra403 115 points 2 years ago
Hey Magnus, let me just start and say that i'm a really big fan.
I'm trying to break the 2000 barrier and I was wondering if you could give me any advice to achieve my goal.
Thanks for doing an AMA!
permalink
embed

[–]MagnusOenCarlsen[S] 246 points 2 years ago
Studying tactics, I would say. Up to that level, most games are still decided by someone hanging a piece...or blundering a checkmate - haha
permalink
embed
parent
load more comments (8 replies)

This is all well and good but I chose to play chess because I wanted to play a strategy game. But it seems like none of that matters until you work your way up to 2000. So in other words, I can't actually play the way I want to until I do a bunch a things I don't want to do.
When I do a bunch of tactics puzzles and drill patterns in my head ad infinitum THEN I'll be able to play some positional chess but until then it's all irrelevant because I will either blunder or constantly fail to find the tactical breakthroughs necessary to win games. So the strategy part becomes mostly meaningless and I end up moving my pieces around untill the inevitable blunder.

But a lot of teachers really don't tell you this when you take up the game. They go on about strategy and planning and all these things but in reality only a small population of players will ever really get to do anything resembling real chess strategy. Most of the games will just end in some kind of tactic that had nothing to do with the ideas of the position.
This is fine for people that like this but I don't and wasted a lot of time trying to learn about positional chess and where to put the pieces only to be faced by my low tactics skills which will keep that knowledge from ever being useful.

So I tried playing go for a while and liked it because strategy seemed to count for a lot more. There are still really complicated tactics in that game too but they don't seem to completetly dominate the game unless you play with a smaller board.

I still like chess but I feel a little sour about how chess advertises things that seem to be reserved for more experienced players while the majority of players will be playing a far different game.
We can even see this in how player like Petrosian would purposefully play weaker moves against lesser rated opponents because he knew he would win anyway. Again it's fine if that's what you wanted all along but it's not what I wanted at all and feel a bit slighted about it. If I had known this all along maybe I wouldn't have invested much time into chess and more into a game like go instead.

A well known saying is that tactics are most important until you get to 2000. Even Magnus Carlsen in a Reddit AMA says the same thing: [–]fra403 115 points 2 years ago Hey Magnus, let me just start and say that i'm a really big fan. I'm trying to break the 2000 barrier and I was wondering if you could give me any advice to achieve my goal. Thanks for doing an AMA! permalink embed [–]MagnusOenCarlsen[S] 246 points 2 years ago Studying tactics, I would say. Up to that level, most games are still decided by someone hanging a piece...or blundering a checkmate - haha permalink embed parent load more comments (8 replies) This is all well and good but I chose to play chess because I wanted to play a strategy game. But it seems like none of that matters until you work your way up to 2000. So in other words, I can't actually play the way I want to until I do a bunch a things I don't want to do. When I do a bunch of tactics puzzles and drill patterns in my head ad infinitum THEN I'll be able to play some positional chess but until then it's all irrelevant because I will either blunder or constantly fail to find the tactical breakthroughs necessary to win games. So the strategy part becomes mostly meaningless and I end up moving my pieces around untill the inevitable blunder. But a lot of teachers really don't tell you this when you take up the game. They go on about strategy and planning and all these things but in reality only a small population of players will ever really get to do anything resembling real chess strategy. Most of the games will just end in some kind of tactic that had nothing to do with the ideas of the position. This is fine for people that like this but I don't and wasted a lot of time trying to learn about positional chess and where to put the pieces only to be faced by my low tactics skills which will keep that knowledge from ever being useful. So I tried playing go for a while and liked it because strategy seemed to count for a lot more. There are still really complicated tactics in that game too but they don't seem to completetly dominate the game unless you play with a smaller board. I still like chess but I feel a little sour about how chess advertises things that seem to be reserved for more experienced players while the majority of players will be playing a far different game. We can even see this in how player like Petrosian would purposefully play weaker moves against lesser rated opponents because he knew he would win anyway. Again it's fine if that's what you wanted all along but it's not what I wanted at all and feel a bit slighted about it. If I had known this all along maybe I wouldn't have invested much time into chess and more into a game like go instead.

lecw

edited

See you on KGS ;)

It sounds like you already know the answer to the question you pretend asking.

See you on KGS ;) It sounds like you already know the answer to the question you pretend asking.

name222

Chess is not tactics only even on a lower level. I know from my own experience that when I mostly solve tactical puzzles I tend to forget how to play an entire game. Therefore it's obvious to me that chess is way more than tactics also on my level (1758 classical lichess rating currently). I see sometimes high rated players talking about that low rated games are not much more than tactics. But actually I think they are wrong. They could probably easily beat any low rated player by their strong tactics alone. But when two lower rated players play with each other then the one with the best strategy is winning most often if their tactical skills are the same. There is a lot of strategy in my games, like having a sound opening play, trying to attack my opponents king and protect my own king etc. Playing every move like if it would be part of a tactical puzzle wouldn't work.

lecw

@name222 "when two lowly rated players play with each other then the one with the best strategy is winning most often if their tactical skills are the same." That's not how it works.

When one says "apples are more important than bananas", he means "it's more important to have a little bit more apples than a little bit more bananas". He doesn't deny that having more bananas is good, if he can only have a fixed quantity of apples.

Now, pair together a player with stronger tactics, and a player with stronger strategy, and only then place your bets. I'll be on the tactician's side.

On an equivalent note, I know a number of players who know more about endgames, know more about openings, weak square complexes and open lines, and can often give good reasons why some move of mine is poor strategically. They're ranked lower than me (~ by 100-200 fide points), because I can go over their games and point : "you missed this sequence ; it would have won the game".

@name222 "when two lowly rated players play with each other then the one with the best strategy is winning most often if their tactical skills are the same." That's not how it works. When one says "apples are more important than bananas", he means "it's more important to have a little bit more apples than a little bit more bananas". He doesn't deny that having more bananas is good, if he can only have a fixed quantity of apples. Now, pair together a player with stronger tactics, and a player with stronger strategy, and only then place your bets. I'll be on the tactician's side. On an equivalent note, I know a number of players who know more about endgames, know more about openings, weak square complexes and open lines, and can often give good reasons why some move of mine is poor strategically. They're ranked lower than me (~ by 100-200 fide points), because I can go over their games and point : "you missed this sequence ; it would have won the game".

name222

@lecw

My point is that strategy matters for low rated players, and also not a little. Learning basic strategy like what is a good pawn structure is an easy and I also think time effective way of getting better at chess. Having a long term plan in a game is a simple way of getting an advantage instead of making random moves in situations where there are no tactical moves availabel.

@lecw My point is that strategy matters for low rated players, and also not a little. Learning basic strategy like what is a good pawn structure is an easy and I also think time effective way of getting better at chess. Having a long term plan in a game is a simple way of getting an advantage instead of making random moves in situations where there are no tactical moves availabel.

Toscani

It is important to have chess principles. You will solve lots of opening puzzles by rules of thumb and chess principles.

First aim for an opening plan: The aim is what you want to achieve. Win the war of the minor pieces. Exchanging a knight for a bishop is a win. Capture a bishop, and place pawns on the opposite color, so that his lonely bishop has less mobility.

A strategy is basically the objective: The objective is how to achieve the aim (the pawn structure). So the objective will be to build say a stonewall pawn structure and push the side pawns towards the opponents king. While the opponent is busy capture on the weak queen side, your busy planning the checkmate on the king side.

A tactic is sometime there because the opponet blunders. With the stone wall, sometimes a knight sacrifice is planned to create the checkmate sequence.

Calculate a tactical sequence like a main line. Then analyse the tactic for possible variants. After that is done, play out the sure tactical advantage.

By then your well into the middle game and looking towards the horizon to image what will be left over at the end of the game.

It is important to have chess principles. You will solve lots of opening puzzles by rules of thumb and chess principles. First aim for an opening plan: The aim is what you want to achieve. Win the war of the minor pieces. Exchanging a knight for a bishop is a win. Capture a bishop, and place pawns on the opposite color, so that his lonely bishop has less mobility. A strategy is basically the objective: The objective is how to achieve the aim (the pawn structure). So the objective will be to build say a stonewall pawn structure and push the side pawns towards the opponents king. While the opponent is busy capture on the weak queen side, your busy planning the checkmate on the king side. A tactic is sometime there because the opponet blunders. With the stone wall, sometimes a knight sacrifice is planned to create the checkmate sequence. Calculate a tactical sequence like a main line. Then analyse the tactic for possible variants. After that is done, play out the sure tactical advantage. By then your well into the middle game and looking towards the horizon to image what will be left over at the end of the game.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.