Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI disagree. I think that strategy is necessary to earn yourself the opportunity to use tactics. Otherwise you must simply wait for you opponent to blunder. Perhaps we're both right, and one must posess both tactics and stragety to learn the next level of both.
I thought about this for a while and I think for me chess is 50% tactics and 50% strategy. But in order to play good strategical chess you have to know the tactics first....
Originally posted by ark13I think the lord means one must recognize tactical threats and traps before one can maneuver his pieces effectively. Always Listen to The Lord!
I disagree. I think that strategy is necessary to earn yourself the opportunity to use tactics. Otherwise you must simply wait for you opponent to blunder. Perhaps we're both right, and one must posess both tactics and stragety to learn the next level of both.
Originally posted by RegicidalI know. I was just pointing out that one can think the other way about it to. You must know strategy in order to know how to set yourself up for a tactic, and whether that tactic is benificial.
I think the lord means one must recognize tactical threats and traps before one can maneuver his pieces effectively. Always Listen to The Lord!
Strategy requires thought; tactics requires observation.
You need tactical knowledge to implement your strategic plans. That being said, you need strategic knowledge to make use of tactical plans.
I fail to see how you can argue for or against the importance of either, as a means to the ultimate goal.
As someone said previously, Soltis said, chess is not 99% tactics, it's 99% calculation. And calculation is necessary for strategy and tactics. You can't ignore either and be a decent player. You might have an open position where your opponent rakes with two bishops. You see a tactic in which you force the exchange one of your knights for one of his bishops. The strategical concept being that normally a knight and a bishop are easier to play against. So the tactic is used to achieve a strategic goal. For something more blatant: If you win your opponent's queen with a discovered attack, you're pretty sure (though not always) the strategy of overwhelming force will subsequently win out in the end--a well-known strategy. The final strategic aim of chess is of course checkmate. A tactic, I suppose, is a sequence of moves designed to achieve a strategic objective. Separating the two is useless, like saying chewing is more important than digestion or, as the old medieval monks used to argue, Can God make two mountains without an intervening valley? I do not underestimate the value of studying tactics, but if you just study tactics and no nothing of strategic principles, like weak color complexes, pawn structure, etc., you'll only go so far.
Originally posted by buddy21) Saying that the game is 99% calculation is like saying the game is mostly thinking.
As someone said previously, Soltis said, chess is not 99% tactics, it's 99% calculation. And calculation is necessary for strategy and tactics. You can't ignore either and be a decent player. You might have an open position where your opponent rakes with two bishops. You see a tactic in which you force the exchange one of your knights for one of his bis ...[text shortened]... f strategic principles, like weak color complexes, pawn structure, etc., you'll only go so far.
It should be obvious that even making your first move requires some sort of calculation. Where are the pieces? Where can they go? What could I do afterwards?
2) Strategic aims and strageic objectives are not the same as strategy.
That as if to say your goals are the same as the method used to achieve those goals.
I would also like to point out that while "overwhelming force" is indeed a splendid win condition, it is not a strategy. Creating the method for the condition of producing an overwhelming force is teh strategy, and thus the subsequent moves made to achieve the goal can be referred to as tactics.
In short, tactics are not long term issues, and strategy can encompase both short and long term issues.
To reiterate what I previously said, "Strategy requires thought; tactics requires observation."
They can overlap to an extent, but they are not the same thing.
1. Calculation is a mode or type of thinking, like addition and subtraction--If I move here, he can move three ways, my responses would be...
2. I'm primarily an e4 player, so i usually move e4 on my first move without any calculation whatsoever, depending on my experience and theory that supports it.
3. Saying that 'overwhelming force' is not a strategy is oversimplification. It is the usual strategy we follow to win games. Tactics, most of the time, are used to achieve overwhelming force,
and we trust that overwhelming force will win the game, and it does
most of the time. Either we achieve overwhelming force on the board as a whole or we achieve it in an area of the position which allows us to checkmate the king.
4. I do agree that a tactic is a short term issue, a combination, a series of moves used to achieve a goal.
I disagree with the concept--tactics require observation, strategy involves thought. IMHO both require observation and thought. You can take a beginning player and say, "Look, the queen is here and the bishop is here." "Yes, I can see that." Now you say, "Notice that the bishop attacks this pawn and so does the queen. So, in other words the pawn is attacked twice, but only defended once." Then it dawns on him. "Aha, I can take that pawn with impunity." A simple example, but the more difficult tactics are only difficult by degree. As for strategy, you must look at the "lay of the land" or the board position in order to conjure up a strategy. What you call "overlapping," I would call "intertwining." or "melding." Separating the two, encourages chessplayers to look for that one answer to solve all their problems when, in truth, there isn't any.