Strategy is ensuring your tactics to work and stopping your opponent's tactics from working. No strategy will work without tactics. Tactics could still work without strategy or bad strategy.
I'll tell you how to successfully win your chess game at 100% The secret is that you buy your opponent a bottle of vodka, you pour it all into him and then just wait to start playing and strategically take one piece after another ;-D
<Comment deleted by user>
@PaveliSz said in #2:
> I'll tell you how to successfully win your chess game at 100% The secret is that you buy your opponent a bottle of vodka, you pour it all into him and then just wait to start playing and strategically take one piece after another ;-D
GREAT IDEA! I WILL TRY IT NEXT TIME!
> I'll tell you how to successfully win your chess game at 100% The secret is that you buy your opponent a bottle of vodka, you pour it all into him and then just wait to start playing and strategically take one piece after another ;-D
GREAT IDEA! I WILL TRY IT NEXT TIME!
@TheKingClash said in #3:
> Strategy is about improving your position rather than ensuring your tactics work.
But improving position for what? For better tactic possiblities. At last you will execute your checkmate with a certain tactics.
> Strategy is about improving your position rather than ensuring your tactics work.
But improving position for what? For better tactic possiblities. At last you will execute your checkmate with a certain tactics.
What is the point of making this forum?
@handsomestt said in #5:
> But improving position for what? For better tactic possiblities. At last you will execute your checkmate with a certain tactics.
For better position?
You do understand, for instance, that firing from the top of a hill to the bottom is more advantageous than on the reverse side right? So you can hold off attackers with less people in the top of the hill than if both sides were on flat terrain. And you can use the rest of the manpower to push somewhere else.
So they have to take the long road instead of trying to take the hill and lose too many men.
That is called strategical positioning, not tactical positioning.
Same with chess. A bishop is often more useful on b5 than on f1. If you block the coordination of the opponents pieces you can easily attack, or say you block a rook from a file and you have an isolated pawn on that file, there is nothing to stop it.
Tactics are a part of strategy, but strategy is not to use tactics as a whole, it is setting up a win condition to work, tactics or not. Usually just position itself.
> But improving position for what? For better tactic possiblities. At last you will execute your checkmate with a certain tactics.
For better position?
You do understand, for instance, that firing from the top of a hill to the bottom is more advantageous than on the reverse side right? So you can hold off attackers with less people in the top of the hill than if both sides were on flat terrain. And you can use the rest of the manpower to push somewhere else.
So they have to take the long road instead of trying to take the hill and lose too many men.
That is called strategical positioning, not tactical positioning.
Same with chess. A bishop is often more useful on b5 than on f1. If you block the coordination of the opponents pieces you can easily attack, or say you block a rook from a file and you have an isolated pawn on that file, there is nothing to stop it.
Tactics are a part of strategy, but strategy is not to use tactics as a whole, it is setting up a win condition to work, tactics or not. Usually just position itself.
@handsomestt said in #1:
> Strategy is ensuring your tactics to work and stopping your opponent's tactics from working. No strategy will work without tactics. Tactics could still work without strategy or bad strategy.
Strategy doesn't ensure tactics to work. In fact if it's strategy it doesn't even see the tactics. It's just following general chess principles to give you the best chances for successful tactics down the road.
> Strategy is ensuring your tactics to work and stopping your opponent's tactics from working. No strategy will work without tactics. Tactics could still work without strategy or bad strategy.
Strategy doesn't ensure tactics to work. In fact if it's strategy it doesn't even see the tactics. It's just following general chess principles to give you the best chances for successful tactics down the road.
My way of thinking about it is that tactics is about making a move because you can calculate that it must lead to a clear advantage, whereas strategy is about understanding when a move is probably best even though any knockout blow for either side is further away than you can calculate.
But they're intertwined, because on the one hand "at the end of this line I'm a rook up" also includes an implicit strategic judgement that the opponent doesn't have adequate compensation for the rook, and on the other hand, picking the strategically best move will still tend to involve looking at some sort of concrete variations even if there's no tactical win in sight.
But they're intertwined, because on the one hand "at the end of this line I'm a rook up" also includes an implicit strategic judgement that the opponent doesn't have adequate compensation for the rook, and on the other hand, picking the strategically best move will still tend to involve looking at some sort of concrete variations even if there's no tactical win in sight.
Nop. Try playing a closed game and you will see strategy is what really matters. Maybe in an open position you can just tactic your way magically but this is not always possible. Looking at the high level where mistakes don't happen you can also see 0 tacticsmen there, no one would fall for some silly tactic at that level so strategy must be applied.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.