Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

From	Message
elyhim 10-Dec-12, 11:14	Defense Chess Studies It maybe hard to swallow but a good defensive player will beat a great attacking player more often than not. This is especially true for those who have the black pieces on the board. To often players make the common mistake of playing the same style of game as with the white pieces. Therefore, it more important to practice defending than finding the right winning combination. Now the art of chess defense is not that easy to distill down to three or 4 simple ideas/principles. There is how ever several keys that added onto of one another over the board will produce a juggernaut that your opponent will break themselves up on. So without further chit chat lets get learning.
elyhim 10-Dec-12, 11:30	Defense Chess Studies: lesson #1 pawn structure basics Key #1: A cohesive pawn structure basics Believe it or not your pawn structure is the heart and soul of your position. It determines where you will develop your pieces, where you will start your attack and most importantly is the force field around your king and pieces. above is a classic example of the two most popular pawn structures for both white and black. The first most important thing to notice is that both black and white have one cohesive pawn(a chain of pawns that runs from a-h). If this pawn structure was achieved in an actually game this position would be equal. The reason why this is true is because of the lacking presence of structural weaknesses. It is important to remember that NO ATTACK CAN SUCCESS WITHOUT FIRST CREATING A PAWN STRUCTURE WEAKNESS.
elyhim 10-Dec-12, 12:09	Defense Chess Studies: lesson #2 Pawn Structures and piece development There are many types of pawn structures in chess. Matter of fact, most chess opening are named after their unique type of pawn structure characteristics. It is extremely worth while getting to know and recognize the type of pawn structure achieved. The reason why this is true is because some pawn structures are good for tactics, while others are excel at long term strategic games. Lets explore some the most well known formations along with a brief intro on their inherent characteristics. This will help us understand how our pawns determine our piece development. Do you recognized what opening system black is playing? If you guess the Sicilian you are correct!. More specifically, he is playing the Scheveningen system. The clues are the pawns on e6 and d6. So how does the Scheveningen system determine black's piece development. Well for starters he is going to need a knight on f6, The bishops are more than likely going to be on d7 and e7 respectably, black with want to castle 0-0 because ...a6 with support of a knight on c6 is going to try and play b7-b5-b4 to undermine e4 and win it. But what about the queen and rooks, while the queen is most comfortable on c7 where it can watch e5, a rook will most likely appear on c8 creating all kinds of trouble on c3 and the other rook will either go to d8 or e 8 depending on what white does in the center. So the finally dream position for black if all goes well is... from this position black is ready to respond to any threat that white may pose. here is another very popular black pawn structure. do you recognize this one? If you guess the caro-kann then you are right. However, if you guess the semi-slav then not quite. As the semi-slav usually has a pawn on ...a6 instead of ...h6. This is most likely black's strongest pawn structure. He only but one weakness and that is ...h6. However, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about pawn structure and piece development. The main features of the caro-kann structure are black's counter attack is c7-c5 or sometimes ...f7-f6. Because of his structure black has a strong point on d5 and d4 but a weak points on e4 and e5. Therefore, when developing his piece black has to secure the d5 and d4 strong points while at the same time keep the balance on e5. The diagram below is an ideally position for black in the caro-kann. here are other common pawn structures worth memorizing. The benoni or benko gambits. very tactical king's indain defense good mix between tactics and positional Queens pawn or QGD positional Queen's gambit accepted or semi-slav fairly tactical with some positional Roy Lopez classical positional
brigadecommander 10-Dec-12, 13:50	Deleted by brigadecommander on 13-Dec-12, 10:38.
stalhandske 11-Dec-12, 02:17	thank you elyhim! Many thanks. Those lessons are excellent, simple, straightforward and very informative! I have never seen/read anything like lesson #2, which brought forward many feelings of "aha!", "of course!", and "I knew that (but could not have formulated it in this elegant way)"
stalhandske 11-Dec-12, 02:32	a question to elyhim I am a little embarrassed by my ignorance, but already over many years I have been pondering about the meaning/definition of "tactical" vs. "positional" in chess. I am embarrassed because I sometimes use those terms myself pretending full understanding. My confusion probably stems from the obvious truths that all planning must be tactical as well as positional. Moreover, isn't playing for always better positions "tactical"? I have never really seen a crystal clear answer to this question (perhaps there is not one?) Now, with the eloquent lessons above (which frequently use these terms) I am hoping that you could present an equally crystal clear differential definition of those concepts here - perhaps with some good example? That might not only help me, but could be a more general lesson for other Club members.
elyhim 11-Dec-12, 06:50	Lesson #3 What is "Tactical" play Thank you Stalhandske for your great question. TACTICS USAULLY INVOLVE A SEQUENCE OF MOVES DURING A CHESS MATCH WITH THE INTENTION OF LIMITING AN OPPONENTS OPTIONS SO THAT IT MAY RESULT IN AN ADVANTAGE. There are 7 common tactical themes are from easiest to hardest 1. pin 2. fork 3. skerwer 4. discover attack 5. removing the guard. To illustrate this further I will provide diagrams of common tactics at work in real games. Every player should know these tactics but memory. tactics #9962 THE FORK AND PIN In the above tactical exercise there are two tactical themes working together to deal a lethal blow. 1. ...Qh4 black is forced to play this move because of the knight on f7 forking the rook and queen. 2. Nxd6+ The bishop can not take the knight because it is "pinned" by the queen to the king. 3. Qc8++ Skewer, double attack and removing the gaurd tactics #31711 1. Qc6+ the queen sets up a "skewer" against the king and the rook this is combined with a "double attack" of the pawn attacking the black queen. 1. ...Kg7 2. Qxg6+ the queen removes the guard that prevents PxQ. 2. ...Kxg6 3. PxQ Discovery attack tactics #30748 1. ...Qe8 discovery attack. The black queen moves away and in so doing reveals an attack against the white queen. 1. ...Qxe6 2. pxQ
stalhandske 11-Dec-12, 09:32	This is great teaching, but... I know that I am pestering you on a holiday (or the like), but as informative as the above lesson is - and helpful, I am sure, for many - it does not really answer my question. Those examples are of course classical situations in a game, and indeed part of the "intelligence" of chess, the way I see it. However, they are all (obviously) based on "positions", so why would they not be called "positional specialities" (for example), rather than "tactics". This might all be semantics, but to me "tactics" means something else, namely decisions about longer term principles of setting up your game (either offensive or defensive). Or is that what they call strategy? My comments on this issue are not restricted to Elyhim. I would in fact very much like to learn from other Members, too, who might be interested.
myevilluck 13-Dec-12, 04:43	First post The difference between tactical and positional plays can be debated because they do go hand-in-hand with each other, but this is how I see it. Tactics, in their most basic form, are advantages by threatening ideas that will lose the game for your opponent. A tactic is something that can't be ignored very easily. Whether it is a fork, pin, skewer, discover checks, sacrifices, or a combination of all of these ideas. Positional play, on the other hand, is putting pieces in their proper spots to gain advantages. They aren't death blows to the opponent, but they slowly eat away at them. Positional play is getting a knight to a nice outpost or having the open file with a rook. These advantages lead to tactics that win the game. Obviously, these ideas are used together quite often. The one that comes to mind is a player moving Bg5 to pin the knight to the queen (tactical), which will likely cause an opponent to move h6 and weaken their pawn structure (positional).
stalhandske 13-Dec-12, 06:02	@myevilluck That was a very clear contribution - many thanks! It largely confirms my more intuitive view that the two concepts are really tightly woven together. So, if we were to name world-famous players that (we think) belong predominantly to one or the other category, whom would we choose? This may be of interest, because studying their games may also then help us to distinguish between the two concepts. My initial example would be: positional: Botvinnik tactical : Keres
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:20	If I were to name to famous players that demonstrated each playing style: Karpov (positional) Judith Polgar (tactical)
stalhandske 13-Dec-12, 23:24	Interesting! Of course, yet of no statistical significance, but - so far - no World Champion among the "tactical" payers.......
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:26	Deleted by elyhim on 13-Dec-12, 23:26.
stalhandske 13-Dec-12, 23:27	Deleted by stalhandske on 13-Dec-12, 23:27.
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:27	I would argue that Kasparov was a brilliant tactician and his brief successor Topalov is renowned for his prowless
stalhandske 13-Dec-12, 23:30	....but would you say, then, that Kasparov could not be characterised as a "positional" player
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:31	lol, I would say that is why Kasparov was so feared because I think he was chess's first well rounded player.
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:31	He would beat you either way, but I think he definitely favored tactics.
stalhandske 13-Dec-12, 23:35	RIGHT!! In a sense, my original argument now "shines through". With perhaps just a little exaggeration, there is no real distinction between positional and tactical play. I know I am being provocative, but I have already learned quite a bit discussing this issue.
elyhim 13-Dec-12, 23:43	To add further to our discussion on positional and tactical chess here is what GM Samuel Reshevsky has to say in the introduction of his book "The art of Positional chess." "The business of the chess player is to conceive practical objective and to plan and carry out the maneuvers necessary to achieve them; the objectives, the plans, the maneuvers-all must be on the possibilities inherent in actual positions. Thus chess is by definition positional. Tactical play is concerned with immediate details of executing the maneuvers....just as there is no such thing as artistic art, so there is no such thing as "positional" and "tactical" chess." Every position...contains characteristic patterns(which we call themes). The pawn structure, a weak square, a poorly defended king, an open file, a badly placed piece-all of these, and many more are positional themes."
stalhandske 14-Dec-12, 00:02	EXCELLENT! To me, those statements pretty much close the issue. I am very grateful for the help in clarifying it!
elyhim 14-Dec-12, 00:33	Lesson #4: understanding pawn formations infront of a castled king In his book "The Middlegame in Chess" Reuben Fine has a brilliant chapter on understanding pawn weakness in front of the king and how to exploit them. Consider the following White can not force open the g or h file without a sacrifice. This black most solid defense. In this case black has played ...h6. And because of that white can force an open file with h5 followed by g5. White can force an open file with g5 followed by h5 or f5 with a black pawn on f6 white can force an open file with f5 followed by g5 So there you have it. Study these basic chess patterns. Let them guide you in determining if you have enough to create an open file.
myevilluck 14-Dec-12, 00:56	I feel like there is something missing in this conversation. If you thought about people being called tactical or positional players, it really has to do with the openings and the way they think in positions. We play correspondence chess, so we get lost in the fact that it is much different from OTB chess. Generally, the people who are considered tactical are more offensive minded players. They are more aggressive in their approach to the game. People who frequent in openings like the King's Gambit, King's Indian, Sicilian, and pretty much any 1. e4 line are considered tactical players. Obviously the flaw to this idea is simply put by the claim of any gambit. A gambit is a game where you sacrifice a piece for a positional advantage, so why is it considered a tactical players game? These games are also more offensive by nature, and require defense by offense in many scenarios because tactics are usually very threatening and have to be dealt with by your opponent at once. On the other spectrum, the people who are considered positional are very defensive minded, and win with a simplistic approach to the game of chess. These openings are more along the lines of 1. d4 openings and things like the Caro-Kann, and Pirc in 1. e4 lines. These players slowly advance their pieces and crush their opponents into submission. They take a more subtle approach without all the crowd pleaser moves and crazy sequences. The flaw with calling someone positional is there are a lot of subtle tactics they still employ to get draws and wins. I've seen plenty of people labeled as a "positional player" use tactics to get three moves reps in games they'd otherwise lose. I personally believe these labels are more of an OTB label than a correspondence label. We get all the time in the world to make sure our ideas work, while they get one or two hours per person for the whole game. They can more readily play the player, make them uncomfortable, and play moves that fit their style. There isn't one set in stone move in most chess positions, you can very easily choose ideas that fit your style.
stalhandske 14-Dec-12, 01:14	@myevilluck That's an interesting and valuable angle - how the correspondence/OTB difference matters. I also agree that much really depends on the choice of opening, even though I would not go as far as to say that "1. e4 is tactical and 1. d4 is positional". You already mentioned Caro-Kann and Pirc. Also many (most) variations of French (1. e4; e6) and Alekhine (1. e4; Nf6) appear largely positional to me - especially for the black player! By contrast, the Dutch defense (1. d4; f5) is genuinely "tactical", if by this term we mean an offensive attacking style.
myevilluck 14-Dec-12, 01:48	Yes, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule of 1. e4 vs. 1. d4 in terms of positional players vs. tactical players. I have read quite a few chess books on the world championship matches played over the history of chess and it seemed to be one of the main differences in how they view the player. Also, the fact that tactical players always play for the win while positional players value draws more. The best example I have of these styles clashing is the Kasparov vs. Karpov matches. In the games Kasparov loses to Karpov, it is almost always Kasparov trying to create attacks where there isn't one. On the other side, Kasparov won his games because Karpov couldn't hold onto his defenses against the overwhelming attacks. It's funny to think that the reason he lost was the same as the reason he won, but it is the theme of the real differences between the styles. It is a fact, however, that Kasparov liked playing 1. e4 and Karpov was a 1. d4 player all the way, so there is some merit to this idea. Why Karpov seemed to settle to play Ruy Lopez lines, and Scotch games against Kasparov I will never know because like you said there are more defensive and positional games than those.
stalhandske 14-Dec-12, 02:25	PERSONALITY The key divider, however, is surely the player's personality. That difference is probably less prominently expressed among professional players, but important among amateurs. Some people enjoy precise, meticulous moves that slowly (but effectively) strangle the opponent (=positional), Others may even be bored by the apparent absence of ACTION or DRAMA, which - incidentally - can involve truly beautiful combinations (=tactical). As you may deduce, I count myself to belong to this latter category. Often enough the "drive for action" flops into an embarrassing loss, but to me such games give the satisfaction of suspense and entertainment - and when such a game is lost, the loss almost always contains important lessons.
myevilluck 15-Dec-12, 00:12	I found a tactical puzzle that kind of has the same basis as your lesson #4. It has the same basis I believe, but in a way more complicated position. tactics #54249
elyhim 15-Dec-12, 00:19	eureka there it is, if there is no pawn on f7 control the diagonal. In this case that minor little detail forced the exchange of the black queen for a rook and mate in 11. Good find thanks

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, monthly chess tournaments, Internet chess league, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.