| |
Main
Date: 14 Aug 2008 10:56:59
From: John Salerno
Subject: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
I think on a basic level I know what each term means. More or less like
this:
tactics: specific moves like forks, pins, and skewers
strategy: e.g. combining pawn moves to set up an open or closed game
position: ??? someting to do with position!
Anyway, I often hear/read things like "learn how to play tactical chess" or
"this line is based on positional play". So there's seem to be a distinct
difference between these methods of playing, and it also seems like you can
almost forgo one method and play another (i.e. forget about tactics and just
play position?).
So what exactly does it mean to play in these ways? I had assumed you would
want to combine them all, but the more I read it seems like, while they may
not be mutually exclusive, they are different methods of playing the game
instead of (always) being complimentary styles.
Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 23:03:41
From: Sanny
Subject: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
Play a few games at GetClub and you will learn about them.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
GetClub's Beginner Level and Master Level all have same strategy.
But as you increase the levels the Tacticsbecome stronger and
stronger.
Human Opponents can be beaten easily if your tactics is good.
But Computer opponent can only be beaten by good strategy.
You can easily beat the Baby Level at GetClub as it only thinks for 2
sec and its tactics is weak.
But Beginner Level you play a strong opoponent as it thinks for 15
sec.
Easy Level very Tough to beat as it plays in 1 min / move.
Here is recent ratings for GetClub Chess.
Baby: 2000+ (2 sec / move)
Beginner: 2100+ (15 sec / move)
Easy: 2200+ (1 min / move)
Normal: 2300+ (4 min / move)
Master 2400+ (20 min / move)
Higher levels are not worth playing as they take lot of time. But
Beginner & Easy give good challenge to all.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 11:25:17
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
On Aug 18, 1:14 pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4cd27287-d56a-4d68-aa77-9d4bd8ca7a3e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You don't get an exclam if it is the only move.....
>
> Dang it! Alright, I guess that's why we never see 1 e4! ;)
Glad you got the joke.... :)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 10:13:50
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
> > Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
>
> =A0 Sanny's dictum seems somehow like a ludicrous paraphrase of Orwell's
> slogan triad from 1984:
>
> =A0 War is peace
> =A0 Freedom is slavery
> =A0 Ignorance is strength
>
> =A0 Sanny certainly seems to believe the last of the three; ignorance is
> practically all he ever displays here.
Explanation of :Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is
game.
Tactic is something you do not have control. You may get good move by
luck or you may miss a good move by luck.
Strategy is the brain. It thinks the Strategy.
Position is the game. Dofferent game has different positions and you
have to play them.
So Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 14:13:29
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b16c422c-2d16-40a0-b6e4-24f9fbf42bca@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Explanation of :Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is
game.
Tactic is something you do not have control. You may get good move by
luck or you may miss a good move by luck.
Uh, feel free to call me a complete noob here, but if part of your strategy
is to bring about tactically advantageous positions, then isn't tactics more
than just luck?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 09:27:12
From:
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
On Aug 17, 2:03=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
Sanny's dictum seems somehow like a ludicrous paraphrase of Orwell's
slogan triad from 1984:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Sanny certainly seems to believe the last of the three; ignorance is
practically all he ever displays here.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 05:26:48
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
On Aug 17, 9:49 pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 5:49 pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Sanny wrote:
> >>> Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
> >>> Play a few games at GetClub and you will learn about them.
> >> Yeah thanks, but I don't need advertisement spam responding to me.
>
> > Way to go, John!
>
> Heh heh, do I get a ! after that post? :)
You don't get an exclam if it is the only move.....
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2008 14:14:32
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4cd27287-d56a-4d68-aa77-9d4bd8ca7a3e@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> You don't get an exclam if it is the only move.....
Dang it! Alright, I guess that's why we never see 1 e4! ;)
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 17:08:59
From:
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
On Aug 17, 5:49=A0pm, John Salerno <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sanny wrote:
> > Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
>
> > Play a few games at GetClub and you will learn about them.
>
> Yeah thanks, but I don't need advertisement spam responding to me.
Way to go, John!
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 22:49:27
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 17, 5:49 pm, John Salerno <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sanny wrote:
>>> Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
>>> Play a few games at GetClub and you will learn about them.
>> Yeah thanks, but I don't need advertisement spam responding to me.
>
> Way to go, John!
Heh heh, do I get a ! after that post? :)
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 17:49:45
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
Sanny wrote:
> Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
>
> Play a few games at GetClub and you will learn about them.
Yeah thanks, but I don't need advertisement spam responding to me.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Aug 2008 08:52:47
From:
Subject: Re: Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
|
On Aug 17, 2:03=A0am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Tactic is luck, Strategy is brain and position is game.
Now we see why Sanny's program is so lousy.
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2008 17:32:22
From: ChessVariant Inventor
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
John Salerno;281659 Wrote:
> I think on a basic level I know what each term means. More or less lik
>
> this:
>
> tactics: specific moves like forks, pins, and skewers
> strategy: e.g. combining pawn moves to set up an open or closed game
> position: ??? someting to do with position!
>
> Anyway, I often hear/read things like "learn how to play tactica
> chess" or
> "this line is based on positional play". So there's seem to be
> distinct
> difference between these methods of playing, and it also seems like yo
> can
> almost forgo one method and play another (i.e. forget about tactics an
> just
> play position?).
>
> So what exactly does it mean to play in these ways? I had assumed yo
> would
> want to combine them all, but the more I read it seems like, while the
> may
> not be mutually exclusive, they are different methods of playing th
> game
> instead of (always) being complimentary styles.
>
> Thanks.
I don't think you can forget about tactics and just play strategy
Strategy is deep planning and more longer term objectives - that woul
allow for tactical advantage in later stages. Exploiting doubled pawns
isolated pawns, backward pawns, taking control of open files
Controlling the center.
Highly tactical (but not so good) players may tend to not pay too muc
attention to these and just strive for complicated positions.
For newbies, tactics are much more important and there is a minimu
tactical vision required to play chess at an acceptable level up t
1400 at least.
I am sure others can point out some good literature on this, I am jus
rambling.
Btw
Anyone with any comments on the displacement chess thread
--
ChessVariant Inventor
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2008 10:07:51
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 14, 10:56=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think on a basic level I know what each term means. More or less like
> this:
>
> tactics: specific moves like forks, pins, and skewers
Basically correct.
> strategy: e.g. combining pawn moves to set up an open or closed game
That might be an example of _a_ strategy, but it is too narrow to
serve as a definition of strategy in general. The Oxford Companion
defines strategy as "the planning and conduct of the long-term
objectives in a game." To play planlessly is usually a recipe for
defeat. After the character of the game has been set by, say, the
first 10 or 20 moves, one should try to devise a plan appropriate to
the position, and only then consider which moves will further the
plan. However, one must be prepared to modify the plan, based on the
opponent's moves.
> position: ??? someting to do with position!
There are many "positional" factors in chess. In general, a
positional factor is something long-lasting, like a doubled pawn,
rather than something temporary, like a disparity in development.
Probably the most important positional consideration is pawn
structure, which is too big a subject to get into detail here. Others
include control of space, access to open lines, weak/strong squares,
advanced outposts, wing pawn majorities, piece coordination, king
safety, etc.
> Anyway, I often hear/read things like "learn how to play tactical chess" =
or
> "this line is based on positional play". So there's seem to be a distinct
> difference between these methods of playing, and it also seems like you c=
an
> almost forgo one method and play another (i.e. forget about tactics and j=
ust
> play position?).
No, in chess you can never forget tactics. Even the most cogent
strategic plan must eventually be enforced by tactical means, and even
the most advantageous position can be ruined by a tactical oversight.
However, a player who depends solely on tactics, who just improvises
and hopes to get in a shot, can usually be defeated by a player of
somewhat lesser tactical ability, who can also evaluate strategically
and devise appropriate plans.
> So what exactly does it mean to play in these ways? I had assumed you wou=
ld
> want to combine them all, but the more I read it seems like, while they m=
ay
> not be mutually exclusive, they are different methods of playing the game
> instead of (always) being complimentary styles.
In the best players, the two styles are complementary, combining
into a harmonious whole. All the world champions have been both
excellent strategists and excellent tacticians. However, in their
styles of play one can often discern an emphasis on one or the other.
For example, Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian
were probably more strategic and positional in their approach to the
game, while Alekhine, Tal, and perhaps Kasparov were more tactically
oriented. Lasker, Euwe, Spassky, Fischer and Karpov were perhaps more
"universal," i.e. at home in most any kind of position and combining
tactics and strategic play equally.
It's impossible to answer your questions fully here. On the subject
of positional play and chess strategy, I might recommend you read some
of these books:
"Simple Chess" by Michael Stean
"The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" by Irving Chernev
"Lasker's Manual of Chess" by Emanuel Lasker
"How to Reassess Your Chess" by Jeremy Silman
"The Amateur's Mind" by Jeremy Silman
"The Art of the Middle Game" by Keres and Kotov
"The Development of Chess Style" by Max Euwe
"The Game of Chess" by Siegbert Tarrasch
"My System" by Aron Nimzovich
Once you have a few of those under your belt, you might want to
tackle "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy -- Advances since Nimzovich"
by John Watson.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 22:24:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 16, 11:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 A fatuous comment. 39.Nf5 is the best move on the board.
Agreed. The comment certainly is fatuous,
since the best move is obviously 39. Nh5.
Perhaps Mr. Kingston was looking at the
wrong position, as so often happens.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 17:38:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 16, 7:57=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > =A0 It was never my intention to annotate this game in any depth, nor=
to
> > > assign ?/! punctuation to every move where it might apply.
The same old song: Livin' on the banks of
de Nile.
> > =A0 One thing I'll give you-- you demonstrated
> > once again how the vast majority of chess
> > annotation is in fact done. =A0For decades, I
> > have seen ludicrous annotations in which
> > the winners' moves are praised to the skies,
> > while devious annotators attempt to hide or
> > at least minimize the errors that led to
> > defeat. =A0This is one reason why I am more
> > forgiving of the often clumsy annotations of
> > computers, for they at least do not try to
> > hide what they believe to be the facts.
>
> =A0 Greg, when you're out in your neighborhood, and you see someone
> taking a casual stroll, maybe pausing to smell the flowers and that
> sort of thing, do you go up to him and say "You call that running? I
> can go much faster than that!" You seem like the type who would.
Do you honestly believe you can simply
pidgeon-hole everyone-- that each and
every individual is easily sorted into a set
number of "types", and each of these
types in turn is fully understood? If so,
please tell us which type nearly-IMnes
belongs to, and -- this is important --
explain in detail precisely how his mind
works. This could be very enlightening... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 16:57:42
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 16, 6:26=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 It was never my intention to annotate this game in any depth, nor t=
o
> > assign ?/! punctuation to every move where it might apply.
>
> =A0 Balance, my boy-- that's the key. =A0You can't
> just plaster exclams all over the place, while
> pretending that the loser made no serious
> errors. =A0(Well, actually, you can!)
>
> > The point
> > was to give Mr. Salerno examples of positional weaknesses and the way
> > a master takes advantage of them.
>
> =A0 This game showed a preference for the King-
> side attack, for White had a huge space
> advantage (remember the positional idea you
> were trying to convey) on the other wing very
> early on.
>
> > If you wish to annotate the game in full, feel free.
>
> =A0 That would not be fair, for I already have seen
> your annotations, and it would thus be a piece
> of cake to improve on them. =A0A fair competition
> would have us both annotate a random game,
> without seeing the other's work. =A0Then we both
> submit our work to, say, Mr. Timman or Mr.
> Huebner for grading. =A0;>D
>
> > > > =A0 Finally invading the weak square.
>
> > > =A0But blocking his own Queen.
>
> > =A0 A fatuous comment. 39.Nf5 is the best move on the board.
>
> =A0 Only if it mates quicker than all the others.
>
> =A0 (Well, at least this time you did not try to
> insist that the move in no way blocks the
> Queen, chilling out in your hut by de Nile.)
>
> =A0 A famous player once said that chess
> games are lost, not won. =A0In other words, if
> you plaster exclams everywhere, you give
> the impression that White won by virtue of
> a series of irresistible-force attacks; in
> reality, Black made numerous errors, any
> one of which could have altered the course
> of the game such that White's "deep plan"
> might have come to naught-- especially his
> doubling of Rooks on a closed file.
>
> =A0 Put yet another way: a game is between
> *two* players. =A0It is every bit as important
> to point out Black's errors as it is to show
> how White exploited his advantage in
> space (albeit on the wrong side of the
> board).
>
> =A0 One thing I'll give you-- you demonstrated
> once again how the vast majority of chess
> annotation is in fact done. =A0For decades, I
> have seen ludicrous annotations in which
> the winners' moves are praised to the skies,
> while devious annotators attempt to hide or
> at least minimize the errors that led to
> defeat. =A0This is one reason why I am more
> forgiving of the often clumsy annotations of
> computers, for they at least do not try to
> hide what they believe to be the facts.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Greg, when you're out in your neighborhood, and you see someone
taking a casual stroll, maybe pausing to smell the flowers and that
sort of thing, do you go up to him and say "You call that running? I
can go much faster than that!" You seem like the type who would.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 15:26:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 16, 11:51=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 It was never my intention to annotate this game in any depth, nor to
> assign ?/! punctuation to every move where it might apply.
Balance, my boy-- that's the key. You can't
just plaster exclams all over the place, while
pretending that the loser made no serious
errors. (Well, actually, you can!)
> The point
> was to give Mr. Salerno examples of positional weaknesses and the way
> a master takes advantage of them.
This game showed a preference for the King-
side attack, for White had a huge space
advantage (remember the positional idea you
were trying to convey) on the other wing very
early on.
> If you wish to annotate the game in full, feel free.
That would not be fair, for I already have seen
your annotations, and it would thus be a piece
of cake to improve on them. A fair competition
would have us both annotate a random game,
without seeing the other's work. Then we both
submit our work to, say, Mr. Timman or Mr.
Huebner for grading. ; >D
> > > =A0 Finally invading the weak square.
>
> > =A0But blocking his own Queen.
>
> =A0 A fatuous comment. 39.Nf5 is the best move on the board.
Only if it mates quicker than all the others.
(Well, at least this time you did not try to
insist that the move in no way blocks the
Queen, chilling out in your hut by de Nile.)
A famous player once said that chess
games are lost, not won. In other words, if
you plaster exclams everywhere, you give
the impression that White won by virtue of
a series of irresistible-force attacks; in
reality, Black made numerous errors, any
one of which could have altered the course
of the game such that White's "deep plan"
might have come to naught-- especially his
doubling of Rooks on a closed file.
Put yet another way: a game is between
*two* players. It is every bit as important
to point out Black's errors as it is to show
how White exploited his advantage in
space (albeit on the wrong side of the
board).
One thing I'll give you-- you demonstrated
once again how the vast majority of chess
annotation is in fact done. For decades, I
have seen ludicrous annotations in which
the winners' moves are praised to the skies,
while devious annotators attempt to hide or
at least minimize the errors that led to
defeat. This is one reason why I am more
forgiving of the often clumsy annotations of
computers, for they at least do not try to
hide what they believe to be the facts.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 08:51:01
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 16, 2:36=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 10:20=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > =A0 John, it's difficult to explain the meaning of "positional play" in
> > a few words -- there are too many aspects to it. To understand it more
> > fully, you should read at least some of the books I recommended. But
> > let me at least present a few classic examples of positional play, to
> > give you some idea.
>
> > =A0 This game is an example of advantage in space:
>
> > Tarrasch-Showalter, Vienna 1898:
>
> > 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 d6
>
> > =A0 With his last two moves Black has already accepted a more cramped
> > position. His KB is less activelty deployed than White's, and is
> > hemmed in by its own pawn. Black banks on gaining counterplay later by
> > striking back in the center.
>
> =A0 In reality, Black never does "strike back" in this
> game; not in the center, nor anywhere else.
>
> > 5. d5 Nb8 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. c4 O-O 8. h3 c6 9. Nc3 Na6 10. Be3 Nc7 11. O-O
> > Nfe8 12. Qc2 cxd5 13. cxd5 g6 14. Bh6 Ng7 15. g4!
>
> > =A0 This inhibits Black from freeing himself by 15...f5. From here on
> > Black's cramp becomes more severe.
>
> =A0 White appears to make no real headway from
> here until we reach move twenty-two, whereupon
> his opponent blunders.
>
> > =A015...Nce8 16. Kh2 Kh8 17. Rg1 Bd7 18. Rg2
>
> > =A0 It may look odd to double rooks on a closed file, but the point is
> > to further inhibit f7-f5.
> > If Black were foolish enough to play that
> > now, White's rooks would swoop down on his king like the Mongol
> > hordes.
>
> =A0 Hoping for a blunder does not constitute a
> real strategy (although it often suffices in my
> games).
>
> > 18...Rc8 19. Rag1 b6 20. Qd2!
>
> > =A0 White wants to play Nf3-e1 and f2-f4-f5, to gain more space on the
> > kingside. But if he did that immediately, Black would play 20...Be7-
> > g4,
>
> =A0 Quite a feat, that move. =A0It reminds me of
> the time the Germans crossed into France
> by running tanks through supposedly
> impassable forest.
Correction: should have ben 20...Be7-g5.
> > trading off his worst piece and gaining a little elbow room. By
> > playing 20.Qd2 first, White prevents this and is able to continue with
> > his plan.
>
> > 20...Nf6 21. Ne1 Ng8 22. Be3 g5
>
> > =A0 Black prevents 23.f4, but at a high price. The square f5 is badly
> > weakened (because now it can never be covered by a pawn), and the
> > scope of the KB is cut even further. Also, it allows White the
> > opportunity to open the h-file by h3-h4 and hxg5, after which White
> > can invade with his rooks, an incursion difficult or impossible for
> > Black to prevent due to his cramped and uncoordinated position.
>
> =A0 Indeed, this cramped and uncoordinated
> position seems to warrant some queries
> like so: "?" for the moves that led up to it,
> yet all we seem to get here is praise for
> the ultimate winner's every whim, good or
> bad.
>
> > 23. Nf3 f6 24. h4 h6 25. Rh1 Kh7 26. Kg1 Kg6 27. Nh2 Rc7 28. Nf1 Qc8
> > 29. Qe2 Kf7 30. Ba6 Qb8 31. Nb5!
>
> > =A0 An excellent move. The knight attacks the rook, which has no safe
> > flight square. Therefore Black must exchange his QB for the knight.
> > Why is this significant?
>
> =A0 Because Black blundered earlier! =A0But we
> don't know quite where, since his errors are
> not clearly pointed out in the annotations.
It was never my intention to annotate this game in any depth, nor to
assign ?/! punctuation to every move where it might apply. The point
was to give Mr. Salerno examples of positional weaknesses and the way
a master takes advantage of them. If you wish to annotate the game in
full, feel free.
> > Notice that all Black's pawns are on dark
> > squares. This means that his light squares are weak, especially c6
>
> =A0Hint! =A0Maybe the careless advance ...b6 was
> a serious error, warranting a query?
>
> > and f5. The QB travels on the light squares. With it gone, those square=
s
> > are even weaker. White will be able to invade them with his minor
> > pieces without fear of the bishop's surveillance.
> > =A0 In contrast, White has no comparable weakness, and Black's minor
> > pieces have little scope. His remaining bishop is hemmed in by its own
> > pawns, and his knights can hardly go anywhere. Though material is
> > perfectly even, White has a great advantage because of his greater
> > space and mobility.
>
> =A0 And the creation of weak squares inside
> the enemy camp (with considerable help).
>
> > 31...Bxb5 32. Bxb5 Rfc8 33. hxg5 hxg5 34. Bc6!
>
> =A0 Again, what's with the ridiculous exclams
> for White's routine moves? =A0And where are
> the yin-yang counter notations for Black's
> numerous errors?
>
> > =A0 The c-file is the only line open to Black, so White closes it.
>
> > =A034...Bf8 35. Qf3 Rxc6
>
> > =A0 The positional pressure is so great that Black must sacrifice
> > material in a desperate attempt to break out. Almost any other move
> > would allow 36.Bxg5, while if Black tries to defend his g-pawn by
> > moving his king to e7 or g6, White plays 36.Rh8, probably followed by
> > Rgh2, invading on the h-file as mentioned previously.
>
> > 36. dxc6 Ne6 37. Rh7+ Bg7 38. Ng3 Rxc6 39. Nf5
>
> > =A0 Finally invading the weak square.
>
> But blocking his own Queen.
A fatuous comment. 39.Nf5 is the best move on the board.
> > 39...Qc8 40. Rgh2 Ne7 41. Nxg7 Nxg7 42. Bxg5 Qe6
>
> > =A0 Showalter made this move and then resigned without waiting for a
> > reply. After 43.Bh6, his situation would have been hopeless.
>
> =A0 This game is a good example of how to
> attack the enemy King with an advantage
> in space, yet it is flawed in the sense that
> Mr. Tarrasch's slow build up lacked energy.
>
> =A0 He had a much quicker build up available
> on the Queenside, where he had a huge
> advantage in space very early on.
>
> =A0 Not once did Black even try for counter-
> play (such as by 29. ...Rxc3, for instance).
> And of course he made quite a few do-
> nothing moves, in addition to weakening
> moves like ...b6. =A0Conclusion? =A0Mono-
> chromy bites.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2008 02:43:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 15, 10:20=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
Very briefly, here is another chance missed
by Black to avoid this slow Kingside crush:
> Tarrasch-Showalter, Vienna 1898:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 d6 5. d5 Nb8 6. Bd3 Nf6
> 7. c4 O-O 8. h3 c6 9. Nc3 Na6 10. Be3 Nc7 11. O-O Nfe8
> 12. Qc2 cxd5 13. cxd5 g6 14. Bh6 Ng7 15. g4! =A0Nce8 16. Kh2
> Kh8 17. Rg1 Bd7 18. Rg2 Rc8 19. Rag1 b6 20. Qd2! Nf6
> 21. Ne1
21. ... b5, exploiting White's carelessness in
overworking his minor pieces. If the focus of
play can be switched to the other wing, all
those Rook moves by White would become
irrelevant-- a loss of time in fact.
This is why, it seems to me, White ought to
have played to exploit his huge Queen-side
space advantage earlier in the game (for
instance, with 12. b4).
At the Web site chessgames.com, a
search on the year 1898 and Mr. Tarrasch
having the White pieces turns up an amazing
win-loss record. Like melted-sugar icing, he
seems to have been "on a roll".
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 23:36:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 15, 10:20=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> =A0 John, it's difficult to explain the meaning of "positional play" in
> a few words -- there are too many aspects to it. To understand it more
> fully, you should read at least some of the books I recommended. But
> let me at least present a few classic examples of positional play, to
> give you some idea.
>
> =A0 This game is an example of advantage in space:
>
> Tarrasch-Showalter, Vienna 1898:
>
> 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 d6
>
> =A0 With his last two moves Black has already accepted a more cramped
> position. His KB is less activelty deployed than White's, and is
> hemmed in by its own pawn. Black banks on gaining counterplay later by
> striking back in the center.
In reality, Black never does "strike back" in this
game; not in the center, nor anywhere else.
> 5. d5 Nb8 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. c4 O-O 8. h3 c6 9. Nc3 Na6 10. Be3 Nc7 11. O-O
> Nfe8 12. Qc2 cxd5 13. cxd5 g6 14. Bh6 Ng7 15. g4!
>
> =A0 This inhibits Black from freeing himself by 15...f5. From here on
> Black's cramp becomes more severe.
White appears to make no real headway from
here until we reach move twenty-two, whereupon
his opponent blunders.
> =A015...Nce8 16. Kh2 Kh8 17. Rg1 Bd7 18. Rg2
>
> =A0 It may look odd to double rooks on a closed file, but the point is
> to further inhibit f7-f5.
> If Black were foolish enough to play that
> now, White's rooks would swoop down on his king like the Mongol
> hordes.
Hoping for a blunder does not constitute a
real strategy (although it often suffices in my
games).
> 18...Rc8 19. Rag1 b6 20. Qd2!
>
> =A0 White wants to play Nf3-e1 and f2-f4-f5, to gain more space on the
> kingside. But if he did that immediately, Black would play 20...Be7-
> g4,
Quite a feat, that move. It reminds me of
the time the Germans crossed into France
by running tanks through supposedly
impassable forest.
> trading off his worst piece and gaining a little elbow room. By
> playing 20.Qd2 first, White prevents this and is able to continue with
> his plan.
>
> 20...Nf6 21. Ne1 Ng8 22. Be3 g5
>
> =A0 Black prevents 23.f4, but at a high price. The square f5 is badly
> weakened (because now it can never be covered by a pawn), and the
> scope of the KB is cut even further. Also, it allows White the
> opportunity to open the h-file by h3-h4 and hxg5, after which White
> can invade with his rooks, an incursion difficult or impossible for
> Black to prevent due to his cramped and uncoordinated position.
Indeed, this cramped and uncoordinated
position seems to warrant some queries
like so: "?" for the moves that led up to it,
yet all we seem to get here is praise for
the ultimate winner's every whim, good or
bad.
> 23. Nf3 f6 24. h4 h6 25. Rh1 Kh7 26. Kg1 Kg6 27. Nh2 Rc7 28. Nf1 Qc8
> 29. Qe2 Kf7 30. Ba6 Qb8 31. Nb5!
>
> =A0 An excellent move. The knight attacks the rook, which has no safe
> flight square. Therefore Black must exchange his QB for the knight.
> Why is this significant?
Because Black blundered earlier! But we
don't know quite where, since his errors are
not clearly pointed out in the annotations.
> Notice that all Black's pawns are on dark
> squares. This means that his light squares are weak, especially c6
Hint! Maybe the careless advance ...b6 was
a serious error, warranting a query?
> and f5. The QB travels on the light squares. With it gone, those squares
> are even weaker. White will be able to invade them with his minor
> pieces without fear of the bishop's surveillance.
> =A0 In contrast, White has no comparable weakness, and Black's minor
> pieces have little scope. His remaining bishop is hemmed in by its own
> pawns, and his knights can hardly go anywhere. Though material is
> perfectly even, White has a great advantage because of his greater
> space and mobility.
And the creation of weak squares inside
the enemy camp (with considerable help).
> 31...Bxb5 32. Bxb5 Rfc8 33. hxg5 hxg5 34. Bc6!
Again, what's with the ridiculous exclams
for White's routine moves? And where are
the yin-yang counter notations for Black's
numerous errors?
> =A0 The c-file is the only line open to Black, so White closes it.
>
> =A034...Bf8 35. Qf3 Rxc6
>
> =A0 The positional pressure is so great that Black must sacrifice
> material in a desperate attempt to break out. Almost any other move
> would allow 36.Bxg5, while if Black tries to defend his g-pawn by
> moving his king to e7 or g6, White plays 36.Rh8, probably followed by
> Rgh2, invading on the h-file as mentioned previously.
>
> 36. dxc6 Ne6 37. Rh7+ Bg7 38. Ng3 Rxc6 39. Nf5
>
> =A0 Finally invading the weak square.
But blocking his own Queen.
> 39...Qc8 40. Rgh2 Ne7 41. Nxg7 Nxg7 42. Bxg5 Qe6
>
> =A0 Showalter made this move and then resigned without waiting for a
> reply. After 43.Bh6, his situation would have been hopeless.
This game is a good example of how to
attack the enemy King with an advantage
in space, yet it is flawed in the sense that
Mr. Tarrasch's slow build up lacked energy.
He had a much quicker build up available
on the Queenside, where he had a huge
advantage in space very early on.
Not once did Black even try for counter-
play (such as by 29. ...Rxc3, for instance).
And of course he made quite a few do-
nothing moves, in addition to weakening
moves like ...b6. Conclusion? Mono-
chromy bites.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 13:00:40
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 15, 10:56=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:335acc19-d773-4d70-bf86-553c934c8094@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > =A0This game is an example of advantage in space:
>
> Thanks! From a quick glance, I'm starting to get the idea of how it works=
.
> I'll have to study it more later when I can play it out myself.
And here's one more game, illustrating the power of a central knight
outpost.
Smyslov-Rudakovsky, USSR Championship, Moscow, 1945:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be2 Be7 7. O-O
O-O 8. Be3 Nc6 9. f4 Qc7 10. Qe1 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 e5
This move is problematic. It used to be considered generally bad for
Black to play ...e5 in the Sicilian Defense, because it leaves a weak
square on d5, and the d6-pawn becomes what we call "a backward pawn
on an open file." Such a pawn can be a liability because it is easily
attacked by rooks and queen on the file, and may be hard to defend.
Eventually lines were devised whereby Black got enough counterplay to
compensate for these positional weaknesses -- for example the
Boleslavsky, Sveshnikov, and Kalashnikov variations -- but in this
game, he does not.
12. Be3 Be6
It was probably better to develop this bishop by 12...Bd7 and
13...Bc6
13. f5! Bc4?
Better 13...Bd7. By trading off light-square bishops, Black
increases the weakness of his d5 square.
14. Bxc4 Qxc4 15. Bg5!
And now White aims to get rid of the only other black minor piece
that presses on d5.
15...Rfe8 16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Nd5
The knight takes up a magnificent outpost, from which it cannot be
deposed except at material loss. Having a knight posted like this is
like having a machine gun on a hill overlooking the enemy's camp. A
classic example of a positional advantage.
17...Bd8
Not 17...Qxc2? 18.Rf2 Qc4 19.b3 Qb5 20.Nc7, or 18...Qc6 19.Rc1 Qd7
20.Nc7, in either case forking Black's rooks. The power of the knight
outpost is felt already!
18. c3 b5 19. b3 Qc5+ 20. Kh1 Rc8 21. Rf3
Intending to bring the rook to bear against the king from h3.
21...Kh8 22. f6
Once positional superiority is established, tactical opportunities
usually arise. This move is one of several good ways for White to
proceed. If now 22...Bxf6 23. Nxf6 gxf6 24. Qh4 Rg8 25. Qxf6+ Rg7 26.
Rg3 Rcg8 27. Rd1 etc. as in the actual game, or 22... g6 23. Qh4 h5
24. Qg5 Kh7 25. Rh3 and mate in at most six.
22...gxf6 23. Qh4 Rg8 24. Nxf6 Rg7 25. Rg3 Bxf6 26. Qxf6 Rcg8 27. Rd1
d5 28. Rxg7 1-0
If 28...Rxg7 29.Rxd5 Qf8 30.Rd8.
John, I hope these three games give you some idea of what is meant
by positional play, and that you are interested in studying further on
your own.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 12:21:07
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 15, 10:56=A0am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:335acc19-d773-4d70-bf86-553c934c8094@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > =A0This game is an example of advantage in space:
>
> Thanks! From a quick glance, I'm starting to get the idea of how it works=
.
> I'll have to study it more later when I can play it out myself.
Here's another very instructive example of positional play, this
time involving doubled pawns.
Matisons-Nimzovitch, Karlsbad 1929:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4
The Nimzo-Indian Defense, now a standard opening but then relatively
new. Nimzovitch was, of course, its main proponent; thus its name. He
also developed the Queen's indian Defense, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6.
These were two of the "hypermodern" openings that became popular in
the second and third decades of the 20th century.
4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3
Black has given up a bishop for knight, but in turn he has saddled
White with a doubled-c-pawn. The pawn on c4 is weak because (a) it
cannot be defended by another pawn, and (b) the pawn on c3-prevents it
from being defended by a major piece on the c-file. Meanwhile Black
can attack it diagonally from a6, and by playing Nb8-c6-a5. In the
early days of the Nimzo-Indian, when the right ways to counter this
strategy had not been devised, this line garnered quite a few points.
5...d6 6. Qc2 Qe7 7. Ba3 c5!
Played to prevent White from dissolving his doubled pawns by c4-c5.
Black wants the weak pawn fixed on c4.
8. g3?! b6 9. Bg2?!
This fianchetto deployment of the bishop is a bad idea in this kind
of position, since it removes one of the few pieces able to defend the
c-pawn. Better 8.e4 and 9.Bd3.
9...Bb7
Normally in this sort of Nimzo-Indian position, Black would want to
play Bc8-a6, to attack the c-pawn, but in this specific situation it
is necessary to counter the white bishop's threats on the long
diagonal. In pursuing strategic goals, one must always be cognizant of
the tactical threats on the board.
10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4?!
White wants to trade off the light-squared bishops, since Black's
has more scope. But a better way was 11...Nd2, from where the knight
would both defend the c-pawn and support an eventual central advance
by e2-e4.
11...Bxg2 12. Kxg2?!
And here 12.Nxg2 was better, intending 13.e4 and 14.Ne3.
12...Qb7+ 13. Kg1?!
Yet another inferior move. Better 13.Nf3 to get the knight back off
the rim and into play.
13...Qa6!
Rather than attack the c-pawn from a6 with a bishop, Black now does
it with his queen. Since the Ba3 is also attacked, White's reply is
forced. This is an example of using tactics to further a strategic
goal.
14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5 16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4
The weak c4-pawn is there no longer, but the weakness of the c4
square persists. The knight takes up a strong post there. By forcing
the Ba3 back to c1, where it blocks interaction of the two white
rooks, Black creates disharmony between White's pieces.
18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6 Rxa6
Now Black has a new target: the isolated white a-pawn.
20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5
The contrast between Black's active, coordinated pieces, and White's
scattered, disconnect pieces, is striking.
22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4?
The least evil was probably to accept loss of the a-pawn by 23.a3,
but Black would still clearly be winning.
23...Ne5 Serious material loss is inevitable, hence 0-1.
These notes are largely based on Chernev's "The Most Instructive
Games of Chess Ever Played."
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 15:42:52
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d3dc43f3-6ba4-4eb1-8061-ce915b9ec208@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Here's another very instructive example of positional play, this
time involving doubled pawns.
Thanks again! I love reading through games that have comments like that.
Simply reading the moves isn't enough for me yet, since I don't know enough
to figure out what's good and bad for myself! I printed your two posts so I
can study them this weekend.
I also have "Logical Chess: Move by Move" which analyzes each move. I'm
looking forward to reading it.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:20:55
From:
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
On Aug 14, 4:48=A0pm, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:e5469340-d9c1-4139-a9f4-dcb8e5d138cf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 14, 10:56 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----------
> =A0In the best players, the two styles are complementary, combining
> into a harmonious whole. All the world champions have been both
> excellent strategists and excellent tacticians. However, in their
> styles of play one can often discern an emphasis on one or the other.
> For example, Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian
> were probably more strategic and positional in their approach to the
> game, while Alekhine, Tal, =A0and perhaps Kasparov were more tactically
> oriented. Lasker, Euwe, Spassky, Fischer and Karpov were perhaps more
> "universal," i.e. at home in most any kind of position and combining
> tactics and strategic play equally.
>
> =A0 It's impossible to answer your questions fully here. On the subject
> of positional play and chess strategy, I might recommend you read some
> of these books:
> ----------
>
> Thanks very much! You helped me to understand that strategy and tactics w=
ork
> together. I suppose it might be safe to say something like you prepare a
> long-term strategy, and during the execution of that strategy you use
> various tactics.
>
> But I'm still a little unclear about what it means to *play* positionally=
. I
> understand a little bit about what positionaly play is when it just pops =
up,
> such as when the pawn structure dictates a change in strategy, perhaps? (=
Or
> better, maybe part of your strategy *was* that particular pawn structure,=
so
> now you must play positionally around it?) So to me, positional play seem=
s
> to be an extension of strategy, something that is prepared for and built
> into certain strategies. Would that be correct to say?
John, it's difficult to explain the meaning of "positional play" in
a few words -- there are too many aspects to it. To understand it more
fully, you should read at least some of the books I recommended. But
let me at least present a few classic examples of positional play, to
give you some idea.
This game is an example of advantage in space:
Tarrasch-Showalter, Vienna 1898:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7 4. d4 d6
With his last two moves Black has already accepted a more cramped
position. His KB is less activelty deployed than White's, and is
hemmed in by its own pawn. Black banks on gaining counterplay later by
striking back in the center.
5. d5 Nb8 6. Bd3 Nf6 7. c4 O-O 8. h3 c6 9. Nc3 Na6 10. Be3 Nc7 11. O-O
Nfe8 12. Qc2 cxd5 13. cxd5 g6 14. Bh6 Ng7 15. g4!
This inhibits Black from freeing himself by 15...f5. From here on
Black's cramp becomes more severe.
15...Nce8 16. Kh2 Kh8 17. Rg1 Bd7 18. Rg2
It may look odd to double rooks on a closed file, but the point is
to further inhibit f7-f5. If Black were foolish enough to play that
now, White's rooks would swoop down on his king like the Mongol
hordes.
18...Rc8 19. Rag1 b6 20. Qd2!
White wants to play Nf3-e1 and f2-f4-f5, to gain more space on the
kingside. But if he did that immediately, Black would play 20...Be7-
g4, trading off his worst piece and gaining a little elbow room. By
playing 20.Qd2 first, White prevents this and is able to continue with
his plan.
20...Nf6 21. Ne1 Ng8 22. Be3 g5
Black prevents 23.f4, but at a high price. The square f5 is badly
weakened (because now it can never be covered by a pawn), and the
scope of the KB is cut even further. Also, it allows White the
opportunity to open the h-file by h3-h4 and hxg5, after which White
can invade with his rooks, an incursion difficult or impossible for
Black to prevent due to his cramped and uncoordinated position.
23. Nf3 f6 24. h4 h6 25. Rh1 Kh7 26. Kg1 Kg6 27. Nh2 Rc7 28. Nf1 Qc8
29. Qe2 Kf7 30. Ba6 Qb8 31. Nb5!
An excellent move. The knight attacks the rook, which has no safe
flight square. Therefore Black must exchange his QB for the knight.
Why is this significant? Notice that all Black's pawns are on dark
squares. This means that his light squares are weak, especially c6 and
f5. The QB travels on the light squares. With it gone, those squares
are even weaker. White will be able to invade them with his minor
pieces without fear of the bishop's surveillance.
In contrast, White has no comparable weakness, and Black's minor
pieces have little scope. His remaining bishop is hemmed in by its own
pawns, and his knights can hardly go anywhere. Though material is
perfectly even, White has a great advantage because of his greater
space and mobility.
31...Bxb5 32. Bxb5 Rfc8 33. hxg5 hxg5 34. Bc6!
The c-file is the only line open to Black, so White closes it.
34...Bf8 35. Qf3 Rxc6
The positional pressure is so great that Black must sacrifice
material in a desperate attempt to break out. Almost any other move
would allow 36.Bxg5, while if Black tries to defend his g-pawn by
moving his king to e7 or g6, White plays 36.Rh8, probably followed by
Rgh2, invading on the h-file as mentioned previously.
36. dxc6 Ne6 37. Rh7+ Bg7 38. Ng3 Rxc6 39. Nf5
Finally invading the weak square.
39...Qc8 40. Rgh2 Ne7 41. Nxg7 Nxg7 42. Bxg5 Qe6
Showalter made this move and then resigned without waiting for a
reply. After 43.Bh6, his situation would have been hopeless.
I will try to post another relevant game or two later.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2008 10:56:01
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:335acc19-d773-4d70-bf86-553c934c8094@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> This game is an example of advantage in space:
Thanks! From a quick glance, I'm starting to get the idea of how it works.
I'll have to study it more later when I can play it out myself.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2008 16:48:22
From: John Salerno
Subject: Re: What's the difference between tactics, strategy, position, etc.?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e5469340-d9c1-4139-a9f4-dcb8e5d138cf@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 14, 10:56 am, "John Salerno" <[email protected] > wrote:
-----------
In the best players, the two styles are complementary, combining
into a harmonious whole. All the world champions have been both
excellent strategists and excellent tacticians. However, in their
styles of play one can often discern an emphasis on one or the other.
For example, Steinitz, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Smyslov and Petrosian
were probably more strategic and positional in their approach to the
game, while Alekhine, Tal, and perhaps Kasparov were more tactically
oriented. Lasker, Euwe, Spassky, Fischer and Karpov were perhaps more
"universal," i.e. at home in most any kind of position and combining
tactics and strategic play equally.
It's impossible to answer your questions fully here. On the subject
of positional play and chess strategy, I might recommend you read some
of these books:
----------
Thanks very much! You helped me to understand that strategy and tactics work
together. I suppose it might be safe to say something like you prepare a
long-term strategy, and during the execution of that strategy you use
various tactics.
But I'm still a little unclear about what it means to *play* positionally. I
understand a little bit about what positionaly play is when it just pops up,
such as when the pawn structure dictates a change in strategy, perhaps? (Or
better, maybe part of your strategy *was* that particular pawn structure, so
now you must play positionally around it?) So to me, positional play seems
to be an extension of strategy, something that is prepared for and built
into certain strategies. Would that be correct to say?
|
|
