Play online chess!

From	Message
deeper_insight 08-Aug-15, 21:07	Positional vs tactical study/play I can't seem to find my old lengthy post on this subject,so I will make a brief summary about this for now and get into more detail in time. Tactical chess is about strategy, how to execute our plan to get some benefits, in many case, its about combination, sacrifice, to create mating net or execute a mating combination, or to win some material advantage, etc.. Tactical is about Execution... Positional Chess, is about controling the squares, as many as possible, including the center or all over the board if possible, to bring our soldiers at the right square, regrouping them, make them the right men on the right place, to play actively, exchange our bad piece with our opponent's good one, building our initiative, preparing our plan, creating pressure to our opponent pyschologically...not try to win quickly, but keep the pressure alive, and step by step push our small advantage higher than before, and keep our threat alive. This is a general synopsis.However,Neither is necessarily "better", they are just different imbalances that can exist on the board. You might have an extra pawn, but be totally lost positionally. Or you might have a positional advantage in some way, but be down too much material.So everything is relative. Many times,tactical players are more aggressive while positional players are more quiet and deliberate.However, when I studying the grandmasters, they tend to show aspects of both types of players. For instance, Kasparov uses tactics and combinations, but does not go charging recklessly without minding his piece positions. Tactical play as knowing what to do when there's something to be done and positional play as knowing what to do when there's nothing to be done. Actually they are two sides of the same coin. Tactics flow from good position and good positions rely on tactics. I think one of the hardest decisions in chess is to forgo a tactical blow for a positional consideration. Tactics require deep calculations while position requires deep understanding. But it's important to keep in mind that the great positional players have also been great tacticians and the great tactical players have also been great positional thinkers. If you look at the great positional players they could also attack very well when thats what the position on the board called for. Petrosian and Karpov are two fine examples. I think the great players do both very well and play what the position "demands" of them. However their personal choice/tastes is what gets one labeled as a tactical or positional player. I think to defend well in a bad position is one of the hardest things to do in chess. Who likes to defend? Don't we all want to attack? So, we study to attack and not how to defend and wonder why we don't defend well in bad positions. gameknot.com
deeper_insight 09-Nov-15, 07:40	Deleted by deeper_insight on 09-Nov-15, 08:30.
deeper_insight 09-Nov-15, 08:30	Some additional thoughts on the "coined"tactics quotes... Sue, a new member asked me a question in the intro post about the old 99% tactics vs positional play math.Here is my response with a few quotes added in: I will say that the 99% tactics viewpoints is actually a "hyperbole" coined source mainly from Richard Teichmann,although other GM's have also said this.It is not actually 99%,but perhaps closer to 90%.In general,players under 1900 in rating depend more on tactics,but above 1900,that is where things begin to change.So yes,I would summarize that tactics are in the 90% range,but not necessarily 99% depending upon the player and his wisdom/rating strength. "If the first explosion of the atomic bomb is considered as tactics, then all the planning, the calculations, the experiments, the interchange of knowledge, the organization of diverse skills, the stockpiling of needed materials – all these elements comprise strategy." There are many positions in which there are no tactics at all....so now what?There is a difficulty with many players south of 1900 in cases like this.In general there seems to be a difficulty in understanding positional/chess strategy and that is why a huge number of players fail to develop it.Thus the tactics percentile will rise closer to 99%.So,in essence,"the tactician knows what to do when there is something to do, it requires the strategist to know what to do when there is nothing to do” (Abrahams). Regarding the positional player and the tactician, it's safe to say that Karpov,Petrosian Capablanca,Steinitz,Botvinnik,Kramnik, all of them world champions, are/were very strong positional players and they were not beaten by many tacticians. So again,there is no concrete 99% math in chess when it comes to "tactics".This is simply a coined phrase that caught on over the decades.With me,even though my name is "tactical-abyss",my tactics vs my positional strategy are far less than 90% tactics in my games and a high % of positional strategy.Again,all is relative depending upon your insight into the game,snapshot analysis knowledge and general wisdom. TA
ragnarhairybreek 09-Nov-15, 10:17	Thanks, TA, for that summing up. I recognize the 'what to do when there's nothing to do' problem all too well. Any advice for us intermediate players on what to do in these situations? One thing I do is to flip the board and see the battlefield from the opponent's pov. That can sometimes be revealing about relative strengths and weaknesses, but not always.
deeper_insight 09-Nov-15, 12:46	ragnarhairybreek,check my new post on "middle game dilemmas,what to move?" Perhaps this will help.I will add in time with diagrams,ect.

GameKnot: play chess online, online chess puzzles, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.