Someone, I think Dvoretsky, said mikey adams was (relatively) bad at tactics.

"marc margolies" wrote in message . ..
yeah troll, all the 'top players' were feeble compared to YOU.
If only they had had more time for masturbation and the Internet, their
feeble hands would be FASTER at BLITZ.

"Laird" wrote in message
om...
I recently read Euwe's book - The Developement of Chess Style.
The author says that players like Steinitz,Tarrasch and Reti
were feeble chess tacticians,in the meaning of Top chess players
standards.
I'll be very interested to know the names of other Top chess players
relatively feeble tacticians.

In article m, EZoto wrote:

nor Capablanca can be considered tactical geniuses
on the level of Alekhine or Netmedinov.

Huh? Capablanca tactically was superior to those 2 when he was in his
prime. Botvinnik and Bronstein admitted Capablanca was a tactical
phenom. The only problem was he was lazy.

EZoto

Laziness isn't the issue: it's a question of what the player does with his
superior tactical vision. One can strive for sharp positions where they
can out-combine their opponents, like Alekhine, Tal, or similar players.
Or they can, because they calculate so much more rapidly and accurately
than their opponents, simply play for positions where they forsee and
neutralize all the tactical possibilities of their opponents. This seems
to be more the Capablanca situation.

In a similar vein, Petrosian is often mentioned by Soviets of that era as
one of the strongest tacticians among his contemporaries. Presumably, it's
what made him in his prime also one of the world's strongest blitz
players. But in tournament and match play his superior tactical vision
generally manifested itself as the ability to avoid any possibility of
tactical threats from his opponents.

But "weak tactician" is such a relative and misleading term to be applied
at the top level. One World Champion-caliber player may be tactically
weaker than another, but in a simul he would still squash us all like
bugs.

--Kevin

illspam (NoMoreChess) writes:

.
The point Euwe is making is that Steinitz was tactically
not as strong as the players of later times


Hardly a fair comparison,

"Fairness" is beside the point. It is no more "unfair"
to point out Steinitz' relative lack of tactical skill
than it is to point out Anderssen's relative lack of
positional skill.

In this book he is trying to trace, as the title says,
the development of chess style. Steinitz and Tarrasch,
he claims, sometimes missed tactical wins that later players
would not miss.

Their style was positional, and they tended to think of
positional solutions to all problems - perhaps to excess.
Zukertort was (according to Lasker), always looking for
combinations, Steinitz and Tarrasch only in positions
where they judged one might exist. In the early days
of positional chess it is not surprising that such
judgment would sometimes be a little off. But of
course both did play a number of excellent attacking
games.



(and I think Lasker says that he was not as good tactically as
some contemporaries such as Zukertort, Blackburne, and Tchigorin


Okay, but he beat all of those players in matches. How so, exactly?

By being positionally far far better, and tactically somewhat
worse. As Lasker says, when he had a good plan, Zukertort
would beat Steinitz. But he didn't know how to make up
new plans, hence in many positions he would either drift
or attack unjustifiably. Examples are given in Lasker's
manual of chess.

I have
many times been outplayed

Neither your experience nor mine applies (unless you
are a 2600 player). To be relatively weak at tactics
for a 2600 player is still to be fairly strong.

Steinitz was not "feeble" at tactics - I specifically
said so (you noticed, of course?). He was good enough
at tactics to usually convert his positionally won games.

I take it as a given that Steinitz was a much better
positional player than Tchigorin. Yet their lifetime
score is almost even, implying that Tchigorin had
something with which to counter Steinitz' greater
positional abilities.


Steinitz played far more top-level games than many of his successors, so you
can't just give a few examples of his oversights, and conclude that he was
tactically feeble.

This is a book. Euwe is not required to include 200 of
Steinitz' games to back up his statement. He makes a
claim, based on what he knows of Steinitz' play, and
provides a few examples. What else would you have him
do?

He beat these players positionally, creating positions in
which the tactics worked for him, not them


Look you (Euwe?), the only way to CONSISTENTLY do that, is by SEEING the
tactics! You can't manuever around, what you don't see!

Being relatively weak in tactics does not means being able to
see very little. In his match defeat by Tarrasch Marshall
lost several games by premature attack. Tarrasch needed to
be tactically good enough to refute these attacks, but he
didn't need to be tactically as good as Marshall to win
these games.


Fine. But I can easily give examples of tactical-monster, Bobby Fischer,
going after irrelevent pawns when there was a simple mating net, or when he was
extroadinarily far behind in development in the opening.
This problem with occasional myopia is not limited to feeble tacticians.

Well, if you were one of the best players in the world and
you assured me that this was not an isolated case, I would
take what you say seriously, not dismiss it out of hand,
assuming I wasn't already familiar with Fischer's games as
annotated by world class players.

There is a famous game where Alekhine and Euwe are playing each other, and
they BOTH miss an elementary tactical shot. What does this tell us about Euwe?
Nothing, for it is only a single (double-)blunder, and everyone makes them.


Everyone blunders. That's not the point Euwe is making.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

..
Steinitz and Tarrasch, he claims, sometimes missed tactical
wins that later players would not miss.


Heck, *I* would not miss many of the tactical shots missed by famous
Grandmasters, generally speaking. These examples prove nothing, except in
great numbers relative to the number of games scoured for errors.


Neither your experience nor mine applies (unless you
are a 2600 player). To be relatively weak at tactics
for a 2600 player is still to be fairly strong.


According to several of the ratings fanatics, several of these masters weigh
in at somewhere around 2400-2500 in todays terms, due to a little thing called
progress. If any of them were much worse at tactics than the others, that
lowers the bar considerably below your figure of 2600.


What else would I have Euwe do? How about providing substantive evidence
that Steinitz was a "feeble tactician," by listing his NUMEROUS tactical
blunders -- all easily found by Euwe without any outside help.

This is not too much to ask of someone making such a bold, outrageous claim
as asserting that one of his forrunners was feeble, I think, in view of
Steinitz's simply *astounding* match record, before his losses to Lasker as an
old man.






if you were one of the best players in the world and
you assured me that this was not an isolated case, I would
take what you say seriously, not dismiss it out of hand,


You want an EXPERT opinion? Okay, how about this assessment, from a
world-renown expert:

"There are not enough Indians in the world to defeat the Seventh Cavalry."
--- George Armstrong Custer


He was right, of course.

EZoto wrote in message ws.com...
nor Capablanca can be considered tactical geniuses
on the level of Alekhine or Netmedinov.

Huh? Capablanca tactically was superior to those 2 when he was in his
prime. Botvinnik and Bronstein admitted Capablanca was a tactical
phenom. The only problem was he was lazy.

EZoto

Fine wrote somewhere many years ago, "Capablanca was more interested
in women than in chess." Now there's a chess genius I can admire!
Fine also tells a story of when Alekhine and Capa attended a Broadway
musical together. Capa couldn't take his eyes off the chorus girls
and Alekhine couldn't take his eyes of the pocket chess set he
brought! warm regards, GreyHipster

(Laird) wrote in message . com...
I recently read Euwe's book - The Developement of Chess Style.
The author says that players like Steinitz,Tarrasch and Reti were feeble
chess tacticians, in the meaning of Top chess players standards.
I'll be very interested to know the names of other Top chess players
relatively feeble tacticians.

According to the exalted standards of the world champions, evidently, Vasily
Smyslov has been regarded as comparatively weak at tactical calculations.

"Tal once cited the experience of another former world champion, Vassily
Smyslov, in a difficult tournament, the 1967 Soviet Championship. Thanks
to his general positional instincts and opening preparation, Smyslov had a
clear edge in virtually every game by move 25. But my move 35 he was often
lost, because he had to resolve the position by calculation, which was a
problem for him."
--GM Andrew Soltis (The Inner Game of Chess, p. 19)

Mercutio: ...a braggart, a rogue, a villain,
that fights by the book of arithmetic!
Why the devil came you between us?
I was hurt under your arm.
--William Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet)

--Nick

..
The comments quoted by Nick Bourbaki about Smyslov do not necessarily equate
to a weakness at tactics, in general.

Another interpretation might be that some players considered Smyslov to be
quite booked-up on the openings and quite strong in the endgame, but not as
strong in the middlegame (moves 25-35 were mentioned as a weakspot).
Losing ground from moves 25-35 could also indicate a problem with time
management, as moves 1-25 generally offer less worry about a flag-falling, and
plenty of opportunity to squander thinking time.

Note that "resolving" a clear advantage into a simple win is no easy task
against top players.

I have seen an IM simply "thrash" a stronger IM, only to throw it all away in
a *simple*, won position. I have also seen a very strong IM toss one out the
window against a GM, who had been thoroughly outplayed, but who handled the
time pressure somewhat better. In both of these games, the higher-rated player
prevailed, but not in the way you would expect.

I also wonder if it could be true that Smyslov really had a clear advantage
in "virtually" every game in the 1967 tourney at move 25, and was really "lost"
by move 35? This looks like an exageration to me. Was this a tag team
competition, and did Bobby Fischer take over for Smyslov's hapless opponents at
the 25th move? :-)

Vasily Smyslov has been regarded as comparatively weak at tactical
calculations.

Don't believe a word of it. I played him once. He is a Chess God.

I don't think Smyslov was very up to date on openings.
I think his strongest points were outstanding positional feeling
and endgame play.
Am I wrong?

Regards
Ken


illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
The comments quoted by Nick Bourbaki about Smyslov do not necessarily equate
to a weakness at tactics, in general.

Another interpretation might be that some players considered Smyslov to be
quite booked-up on the openings and quite strong in the endgame, but not as
strong in the middlegame (moves 25-35 were mentioned as a weakspot).
Losing ground from moves 25-35 could also indicate a problem with time
management, as moves 1-25 generally offer less worry about a flag-falling, and
plenty of opportunity to squander thinking time.

Note that "resolving" a clear advantage into a simple win is no easy task
against top players.

I have seen an IM simply "thrash" a stronger IM, only to throw it all away in
a *simple*, won position. I have also seen a very strong IM toss one out the
window against a GM, who had been thoroughly outplayed, but who handled the
time pressure somewhat better. In both of these games, the higher-rated player
prevailed, but not in the way you would expect.

I also wonder if it could be true that Smyslov really had a clear advantage
in "virtually" every game in the 1967 tourney at move 25, and was really "lost"
by move 35? This looks like an exageration to me. Was this a tag team
competition, and did Bobby Fischer take over for Smyslov's hapless opponents at
the 25th move? :-)

666 (Akorps666) wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
(context snipped by Akorps666; please read my earlier post in this thread)

Vasily Smyslov has been regarded as comparatively weak at tactical
calculations.

Don't believe a word of it. I played him once. He is a Chess God.

What I wrote was only in reference to GM Andrew Soltis's account of Mikhail
Tal's characterisation of Vasily Smyslov's play in 'a difficult tournament'.

I also admire Vasily Smyslov. Yet according to Tal's exalted standards,
Smyslov might well have been '*comparatively* weak at tactical calculations'.

'Men are so different at different times.'
--Charles Dickens (Nicholas Nickleby)

--Nick