Hello everyone,
I am much stronger in tactics than in strategy. What openings do you advise me to play with the whites to take advantage of this strenght?
I thank you in advance.
Bonjour à tous,
Je suis largement plus fort en tactique qu'en stratégie. Quelles ouvertures me conseillez-vous de jouer avec les blancs pour tirer profit de de ce point fort ?
Je vous remercie par avance.
Je suis le meme type.
Accosaise en tant que blanc,
Sicilienne dragon contre e4,Nimzo ou Dame indienne contre d4 et le systeme e5 contre c4
Colle Opening fits your needs.
You should mostly play 1.e4, for sure.
If Black plays 1...e5, then play the King's Gambit. It gets a bad rap, but probably isn't that bad in practice. If Spassky could play it against other high-level players, then certainly it will be playable at our level.
If Black plays 1...e6, then play 2.Nc3 and try to play sharp chess. See this
chess.com post:
www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/need-sharp-french-line-for-whiteIf Black plays 1...c5, then you're in luck. You can play the Open with 2.Nf3 and 3.d4, or you can go for a Grand Prix attack with Nc3 and f4 etc.
If Black plays 1...c6, go for the Panov-Botvinnik if you feel comfortable with that. Alternatively, try the Fantasy variation with 3.f3.
If Black plays anything else (Scandinavian, hypermodern setups, modern Philidor/Pirc setups, the Alekhine's, and others): develop your pieces quickly, perhaps castle on opposite wings, and just try to play aggressive chess.
Error message, insufficient data. Tactics *and* strategy occur after 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.Nf3, 1.c4, 1.g3, 1.b3 etc... Do you like closed centers, open centers, positions with durable tensions, position in which you have two or three moves to create something before it peters out to an inevitable draw, positions with an element of blockade or positions with passed pawns, hanging pawns, weaknesses in both camps, etc... ?
#5 +1
Additionally, I'd advise you to not try too hard to bend your play to accomodate some (self-defined) "strength". It is better to try to always have an objective look on what's best in the situation.
If you try to evade your weaknesses on purpose, not only will you miss the best move sometimes, but you will also screw with your long-term progress. Chess is all about who makes the fewest and/or least grave errors, so it pays off more to work on weak points.
#6 chess is a game, it is meant to be fun. If you like tactics, it usually means you are better at it than technique/strategy and a tactical game makes more fun to you, so it makes sense to strive for tactical positions right out of the opening, especially with white.
The same vice versa for people who like a quiet game with slow, strategic strangling of the opponent or finesses in endgames.
Generally speaking it is right that you should work to strengthen your weakest ability, but it is less fun and is more likely to lead to frustration.
That is very true, of course.
Everyone needs to find the right balance (short term fun, long term improvement that potentially leads to more fun, etc.) for himself.
I just wanted to warn against excesses in one direction. ;)
Yes, that is true too.
But also in other sports everybody specialises in something.
Like cycling: there are sprinters, mountain climbers, time racers, one day race specialists, tour specialists etc.
In chess it is often such, that a player starts as a tactician and over the years evolves to more positional play. Tal evolved like that, but now Kramnik seems to do the opposite.
You are only as strong as your weakest skill. Opponents prey on that. Against X, trade off pieces, he cannot play an endgame. Against Y, attack: he cannot defend. Against Z: just defend, he will sacrifice pieces and you win.
i need help to develop strategy.