@killF7 showing your age there!
Good positional play is based on small tactical details (Jussupow/Dvoretzky).
Strategic goals are achieved by tactical means.
Full stop.
Strategic goals are achieved by tactical means.
Full stop.
Tactics flow from a superior position...
#23 That is hopelessly outdated. Or just half of the truth.
Computers taught us that there are tactics everywhere, even random. „Deserved“ or not.
Even a player who blundered 100x in a game being worse the whole time can find a winning combination coming out of „nowhere“.
Computers taught us that there are tactics everywhere, even random. „Deserved“ or not.
Even a player who blundered 100x in a game being worse the whole time can find a winning combination coming out of „nowhere“.
Euwe wrote a 2-book set on static and dynamic middlegame factors, although perhaps at top-10 super-GM levels these books are out of date:
www.ebay.com/itm/The-Middlegame-Books-1-And-2-By-Euwe-And-Kramer-Chess-Books-/254553214277
www.ebay.com/itm/The-Middlegame-Books-1-And-2-By-Euwe-And-Kramer-Chess-Books-/254553214277
# Sagon, Stockfish can run 3,000 times faster in searching positions than Leela in TCEC. If there are tactics are everywhere, Stockfish will kick out Leela like a kid.
In fact, 1 good position search of leela is approx equavilent to 3000 tactical positional search of Stockfish.
If Leela search 1 million positions, Stockfish will need to search 3 billion positions to get equal strength to Leela.
In fact, 1 good position search of leela is approx equavilent to 3000 tactical positional search of Stockfish.
If Leela search 1 million positions, Stockfish will need to search 3 billion positions to get equal strength to Leela.
Agreed. If you play tactically waterproof >Elo 3500 you can think about strategy^^
Let us look at a famous example
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400
Tactics? Strategy? Positional play?
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400
Tactics? Strategy? Positional play?
@MrCrusher What would you have expected? That Jacob Aagaard titled both books the same? His publisher would have objected. Regardless of how similar the terms are, he didn't want to title his second book the same as his first.
@tpr On #28, thanks for that link.
Interesting from that link was the link to Winter's discussion on the history and meaning of "zugzwang".
en.chessbase.com/post/winter-on-i-zugzwang-i
As for the thread topic .. usually words have multiple meanings and are interconnected.
Consider 1.e4. Think about this move tactically, positionally, and strategically, whatever those words mean to you.
I think tactics is the easiest to understand. The e4-pawn is undefended (though currently not attacked), while it is attacking two squares. There is much more that could be said about the tactical consequences of playing 1.e4, as you all know.
Positionally, the pawn occupies a center square and increases space and mobility. Some people would talk about the fact that the pawn attacks f5 and d5 as part of the positional aspect.
Strategically, the move may have been played with the intent of playing an open game, or even with something as simple as a strategy to castle kingside earlier; as beginners are taught to do. The move 1.e4 may have been played because White knows his opponent does not like to play against that move! Is that "strategy" or "gamesmanship"?
As a more complex example, consider the Exchange Variation of the Ruy. We all learn early that White cannot win a pawn with Nxe5. Tactics. We learn also the concept of doubled pawns. Positional. We also learn that one idea for White is to try for an early Queen exchange and head to the endgame where White has the kingside majority and Black cannot force a passed pawn with his queenside majority. Strategy that is based on the positional and tactical considerations.
Interesting from that link was the link to Winter's discussion on the history and meaning of "zugzwang".
en.chessbase.com/post/winter-on-i-zugzwang-i
As for the thread topic .. usually words have multiple meanings and are interconnected.
Consider 1.e4. Think about this move tactically, positionally, and strategically, whatever those words mean to you.
I think tactics is the easiest to understand. The e4-pawn is undefended (though currently not attacked), while it is attacking two squares. There is much more that could be said about the tactical consequences of playing 1.e4, as you all know.
Positionally, the pawn occupies a center square and increases space and mobility. Some people would talk about the fact that the pawn attacks f5 and d5 as part of the positional aspect.
Strategically, the move may have been played with the intent of playing an open game, or even with something as simple as a strategy to castle kingside earlier; as beginners are taught to do. The move 1.e4 may have been played because White knows his opponent does not like to play against that move! Is that "strategy" or "gamesmanship"?
As a more complex example, consider the Exchange Variation of the Ruy. We all learn early that White cannot win a pawn with Nxe5. Tactics. We learn also the concept of doubled pawns. Positional. We also learn that one idea for White is to try for an early Queen exchange and head to the endgame where White has the kingside majority and Black cannot force a passed pawn with his queenside majority. Strategy that is based on the positional and tactical considerations.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.