I love tactics but I don't not convinced about them being a good foundation.
For my grade , I am good at tactics but I always envied the people who could
play proper 'grown up' chess ie positional chess.

Manys the time in a congress (ok ok, once or twice) where I have won in 15
moves because my opponent went wrong in a sharp Giocco piano. I then used to
go an watch the 'real' players work diligently towards getting a piece to a
strong outpost, or to cramp the opponent's position and crush any chance of
counterplay, or deciding when to swap off, when to keep the pieces on, when
to give up a bishop for a knight or a rook for a bishop etc etc.

I think your tactical ability has to rest on your positional ability.
Positional ability gets you there, tactics finish it off.
With just tactics you are just a wildcat, a cheapo merchant, a coffee house
player,
a card sharp with a few aces hidden up your sleeve.
With only positional play you get to a won position but lack the imagination
to turn a promising position into a win.
You need both. Postional play makes tactics easier, once you have used
positional play to get your opponent into all sorts of trouble, then its
easier to finally nail him with tactics.

For instance we've all seen master games where some great master piles on
the pressure for move after move after move then suddenly its a sacrifice
and a mate!

So maybe there is no 'foundation' apart from making sure you work on both
aspects of your
game, postional and tactics, two side of the chess coin in my opinion -
inseperable.

If you enjoy tactics, bring your positional play up to speed, then more
vistas of tactical opportunity will open up for you!

"Russell Reagan" wrote in message
news:2v3Ua.124034$OZ2.25055@rwcrnsc54...
I would like to know what stronger players think is a good book (or small
set of books) to build a solid foundation for playing chess. Most people
want a quick fix, but I am asking for a book (or books) that when studied,
will give a player a solid foundation for moving on to become a strong
player.

I am not exactly sure if this is a good example, but the Inner Game of
Chess
comes to mind. It seems like it teaches a method to play chess which will
be
applicable to any situation on the board. You still have to fill in some
of
the details such as gaining knowledge, becoming tactically sound, and so
on,
but the overall system seems like it would give one a solid foundation to
build upon.

An example of what I am trying to avoid is this. People say that you
should
start with tactics because they are the most important, and they are a
good
foundation. I think that what happens is that people (mostly beginners and
weaker players, which is most of us) get wrapped up in tactics and their
"chess growth" is stunted. They spend all of their time looking for cheap
tactics and never progress as a player. A book like the Inner Game of
Chess
would teach you that tactics are not the end, but one of the many means to
the real end.

I am currently picturing chess ability as a tree. I am looking for the
roots
and trunk of the tree (the solid part). The branches are things that you
fill in later, like tactics, endgame, opening, pawn structure, and so on.
If
someone learns tactics first, they're left with one branch and have no
direction, and they never get any better.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments.