EPT+ Show Spoiler +
Personally expecting a Sveshnikov, I've been trying to incorporate that into my repertoire to mix up with the Najdorf but haven't had too much success with it
TL Chess match II - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
lightman
United States731 Posts
and about positional, one sooner or later figures out that it's something you have to work on and improve as it's a deciding factor in a game, at times even more than tactics. I think this match should be real fun, and I'll also try to contribute more analysis apart from moving. and to athos, that's totally true also. I hardly think anyone could get tired of combining tactics and positioning. only supreme geniuses like Fischer and Capablanca could see all the moves and lines, and began thinking of variations for the game itself (IE Fischer Chess or Capa Chess), cause they got bored with the rules as we know them, but that's them just 0.00000001 % of the chess players and 0.0000000000000000000000001 % of the world popuplation haha. now let's see what develops in this vote round ! | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
 | ||
|
jcu
Canada93 Posts
In respect to the difference between positional play and tactical play, I think its first important to distinguish between positional play and positional moves and tactical play and tactical moves. A positional position is often closed but not necessarily so and does not lend itself to tactics except for simple skirmishes in the form of perhaps pawn levers or whatnot. You don't want to be calculating combinations that don't exist but you should always be vigilant in chess. A tactical position is generally one that requires more calculation. Often there are positional imbalances such as a knight vs bishop scenario and the position is open in nature (since this allows more possible moves and direct conflicts with the opposing army) implying fragmented pawn structures or some pawns at least traded. Now positional moves can be played in tactical or positonal positions and vice versa. The type of position though focusses your energy on whether you should be trying to end the game right now or slowly nurture a small advantage i.e. playing a tactical or positonal move. Of course this is all based on pattern recognition to find the right balance between tactical and positional moves in a given position. Chess isn't that difficult of a game up to 2400 fide. One IM once told me that he thinks everyone can get a 2400 fide rating after 8 months of focussed study. You build up your chess intuition based on pattern recognition. The GM spends less time calculating over the board than an IM and so on because they recognize positions and how to steer the game advantageously. Often though you steer towards more positional openings where there is less of a chance you can be surprised by complications if you are confident that your technique is better than your opponents or if you are a lazy, intuitive player who hates studying openings and calculating (not a bad thing by any means). It's also a good idea to play "boring" openings versus opponents with aggressive playstyles and most children since you make them expend their energy trying to calculate tactical moves to gain an advantage when the position does not call for tactics but slow harmonisation of pieces. Sorry for this being so long t.t | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
| ||
|
goldrush
Canada709 Posts
On December 10 2009 06:26 citi.zen wrote: I must say I am a surprised we have not seen some version of Fisher chess gain more popularity. At the beginning of games computers now have access to huge openings databases, and as the game goes on they can fully"solve" the game. Having less predictable openings would greatly help humans & possibly make for much more exciting games. Computers generally perform much better than humans in random chess. Humans rely a lot more on openings and patterns than we like to admit, while a computer will have the same evaluation criteria no matter what the position on the board. | ||
|
lightman
United States731 Posts
c3 - 2 d4 - 10 Bb5 - 1 are you guys cool if the trend keeps moving towards d4 I can update tomorrow around noon that way we can move more quickly on the early game, or do you prefer me waiting till Friday ? I mean so far almost half of the team has voted already. | ||
|
jfazz
Australia672 Posts
 I don't feel that at a high level that there is not a huge difference between sharp tactical play and quiet positional play. Many wins by Petrosian or Karpov came in a completely calm and quiet fashion, wherin their opponents had nothing the whoel game - while the games typically do conclude in tactical flurries, that is only the result of extensive positional manoevures - their opponents are forced into a ruined position where there are no good moves left. I feel this distinguishes that style of play from sharper tactical players, who tr to constantly set challenges for their opponents, one after another, hammer blow after hammer blow, until they collapse. The key difference is the attacking nature of the play, in my opinion, often positional players are not ever playing for "an attack". For example, I won a game earlier this morning in an English opening that transposed to a Maroczy Bind and I ended up converting a bishop pair and space advantage to a winning endgame position - but I never ever looked like winning via an attack. Actually, from memory, I didn't use a single combination or tactical ploy the whole game. I know its only one game, but think it is indicitive of my overall method of play, and of positional players in general. | ||
|
GW.Methos
United States249 Posts
| ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On December 10 2009 06:30 goldrush wrote: Computers generally perform much better than humans in random chess. Humans rely a lot more on openings and patterns than we like to admit, while a computer will have the same evaluation criteria no matter what the position on the board. Do you have some citations for that claim? I am not disputing it, but am curious to find out more, since such a finding would go against the very spirit of random chess. I found this link citing Matthias Wüllenweber, who agrees with you, but had trouble finding much more. Sorry if this getting off topic, its just one of those things I've always wondered about. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
| ||
|
jeddus
United States832 Posts
I've been a lifelong chess enthusiast and recently enjoy following TL Chess Matches second only to the TSL! | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
| ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
lightman
United States731 Posts
once we've reached move 5 or 6 we'll stick to the 48 hour voting time so that you guys can analyze all your potential moves and analyze your positions and debate. 3 d4 cxd4 updated VOTE FOR MOVE 4. SIGN UPS OPEN UNTIL THIS MOVE. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
| ||
