A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

..possible to get (reasonably) good with no tactics?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 11th 03, 03:37 PM
Oliver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ..possible to get (reasonably) good with no tactics?

hi all -
my style of chess is almost completely bereft of tactics!

...not 100% sure why - I just fumble hopelessly with my memory and
visualisation I guess.

I also have a woefull end-game - probably for similar reasons.

despite this I'm still not *too* bad - playing 'josh age 9 (~1800)' in
Chessmaster with some success at the moment.

- are there many other players out there like this?
- is it possible to get really good like this?
- anyone got a remedy ?

Oliver.
  #2  
Old July 11th 03, 05:08 PM
Ari Makela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ..possible to get (reasonably) good with no tactics?

In article , Oliver wrote:

How do you define "good"? I would say that you're good if you're a
candidate master (non-senior master in American terms). YMMV, of course.

One could also ask how do you define "tactics"?

No, I don't think you can get good without tactics. Tactics is always
there even though there are some great games where tactics is
underground, in variations and in subvariations. If you fail in them
against strong players you will usually lose.

Most games have phases where some tactics, at least in form of "une
petite combination" is needed. If such possibilities are missed the
games often peter out into draws.

despite this I'm still not *too* bad - playing 'josh age 9 (~1800)' in
Chessmaster with some success at the moment.


Don't overestimate the value of light games and games against computers.
Serious tournament games are something quite different.

- anyone got a remedy ?


Study tactics. Study games of people like Mikhail Tal and Alexander
Alekhine. Play tournament chess. Sharpen your opening repertoire. Play.
FICS and other such net services are an excellent place to try things
but avoid overly short games. 3 minute blitz games are fun but they are
almost always totally worthless if you consider chess as something that
can have beuaty or technical quality. Some teachers use 15 minute games
for training. That's still very fast.

--
Ari Makela http://arska.org/hauva/

"Deux fous gagnent toujours, mais trois fous, non!" - Alexander Alekhine

  #5  
Old July 12th 03, 10:09 AM
Fn39k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ..possible to get (reasonably) good with no tactics?

Artur Yuspov and Mark Dvoretsky books are for Class A and stronger players no
matter which catagorie you look in. Reading a Dvoretsky book may pump you up
but you may not have the stamina afterwards to read/study anymore books for a
while.
  #7  
Old July 14th 03, 10:24 PM
Mike Ogush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ..possible to get (reasonably) good with no tactics?

Hello Oliver,

I am not sure what you mean by having a style that is "bereft of
tactics", but here's my try at answering your questions

Are there any other players like you?
I suspect that there are plenty of players, who reach a level where
further progress is limited by their tactical knowledge. Some find a
way to go beyond their current limitations (by studying books,
drilling on tactical exercises, use a coach, etc.). Others are quite
content to play at that level for the rest of their lives.

Can you get really good without understanding tactics
I don't believe that this is possible. As I progressed from a USCF
rating in the 1500s to my peak at around 2167 I found that I did have
some games where neither side made a significant tactical error until
the game was already decided. However, a large majority of games were
decided according to who made the last tactical blunder. [I have lost
games where I had a forced checkmate or where I had a winning position
and "helped" my opponent to checkmate me!] The percentage of purely
positional games that I played increased as I got stronger or to put
it a differently the percentage of games where I played a boneheaded
blunder decreased as I got stronger. I have also noticed in my later
games and in those of stronger players that many times a position will
arise that if the side with the advantage doesn't use tactics to
increase that advantage will get an inferior position. There are
plenty of positions from actual games where the only way for one side
to avoid checkmate is to inflict mate on their opponent.

remedies
One whay to judge your tactical ability is to have either a stronger
player or a stronger computer (setting) analyze your games with 'josh
age 9' or other opponents. Notice opportunities that you missed
winning substancial material. [Start with a larger threshold of say a
minor piece and as you get better lower the threshold down to two
pawns and then just one pawn.] Also, notice where your opponent could
have punished your mistakes by winning a similar amount of material.

Once you have identified your mistakes in either not winning material
or allowing your oppenent to win material. Make those positions and
the correct move into flash cards (or positions in a chess database)
so you can drill yourself on positions where you have made mistakes in
the past. If you can find a stronger player to help this process,
they may be able to give a name to the tactical motif that you haven't
fully understood and point you to additional exercises covering that
motif. After testing yourself with these postions play more games,
analyze them afterwords and take notice of the types of tactical
errors that you are still making. Focus further study and practice on
your weakest areas.


Yours,

Mike Ogush


On 11 Jul 2003 06:37:57 -0700, (Oliver)
wrote:

hi all -
my style of chess is almost completely bereft of tactics!

..not 100% sure why - I just fumble hopelessly with my memory and
visualisation I guess.

I also have a woefull end-game - probably for similar reasons.

despite this I'm still not *too* bad - playing 'josh age 9 (~1800)' in
Chessmaster with some success at the moment.

- are there many other players out there like this?
- is it possible to get really good like this?
- anyone got a remedy ?

Oliver.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.