Epiphany
I think I've had an epiphany concerning tactics. I've always considered tactics and strategy as two separate things in chess. Well...they're not. Now before you get all P.O'd at me, hear me out. Before, I thought that tactics were the ways strategy got implemented. This, I still believe, is true.
But, what I now realize goes beyond this small idea. It's not that tactics are the ways to implement strategy. It's that tactics are the way to play chess. They are the only way to play chess. You see, no moves should be made in chess unless there is a sound tactical basis for making those moves.
For instance, say you have a choice between developing a knight to f3, but without generating any threats that the opponent must repond to, or developing a bishop with check. Which would you do? Chances are good that the bishop move is best because it limits your opponent's responses.
What if none of your choices of moves would create any tactical threats? Then, you must choose the one that creates the greatest possibility of future tactics. You see, this is why all the talk about counterplay with inferior positions being more important than having a sound, but passive, position is all about! This strikes to the very heart of the dynamic school of thought.
So, I feel even more comfortable about the necessity of becoming a master of tactics, because not doing so will limit my potential development in my chess career.
But, what I now realize goes beyond this small idea. It's not that tactics are the ways to implement strategy. It's that tactics are the way to play chess. They are the only way to play chess. You see, no moves should be made in chess unless there is a sound tactical basis for making those moves.
For instance, say you have a choice between developing a knight to f3, but without generating any threats that the opponent must repond to, or developing a bishop with check. Which would you do? Chances are good that the bishop move is best because it limits your opponent's responses.
What if none of your choices of moves would create any tactical threats? Then, you must choose the one that creates the greatest possibility of future tactics. You see, this is why all the talk about counterplay with inferior positions being more important than having a sound, but passive, position is all about! This strikes to the very heart of the dynamic school of thought.
So, I feel even more comfortable about the necessity of becoming a master of tactics, because not doing so will limit my potential development in my chess career.
posted by CelticDeath at 1:35 PM
4 Comments:
Did you see dead people behind you too like j'adoube did while driving at Damascus Road?
True. I'm sure Nimzowich, Capablanca, and Alekhine all had different opinions on the game and perhaps all were only in part correct.
One thing I've noticed about my chess since I've focused on tactics, is that when I play, my moves are more forceful. After studying mates, pins, etc., you start to look for moves that make your position stronger and more threatening (i.e. your strategically superior in your piece placement because you possess strong and potential tactical threats). They go hand in hand for sure, and at some level they merge completely.
I think you might actually be talking semantics here.
It seems simple: strategy seems like a bag of general chess ideas for winning (or not losing) that takes place in the long term, and tactics and combinations are short-term and based on the peculiarities of a position.
I think you are saying tactical awareness has changed your implementation of chess strategies.
Post a Comment
<< Home