Great discussion! Thanks everybody for sharing your knowledge and experience.
Yes, just find an opening that you are comfortable with. Magnus is not as good at theory as other top GMs but he is the world champion. His chess understanding is tremendous. Tactics are very important but in my case it's difficult to go further because i'm a slow thinker.
Gcollier, that's why I gave up those systems. I always play e4 (not even d4 I'm using), and I always try to play Ruy Lopez, if the answer is e5 and blah blah. I think it is maybe better to stuck to one super classic system (one using e4, for example) and reach a equal/slightly better position in the middle game, and then learning the "middle game itself".
And if you repeat a single system a lot of times, you tend to get a sense of what works and what doesn't work on that system.
I also read somewhere that the Ruy Lopez is a "great school", and that if you can play this well, you learn a lot of skills for almost every system.
And if you repeat a single system a lot of times, you tend to get a sense of what works and what doesn't work on that system.
I also read somewhere that the Ruy Lopez is a "great school", and that if you can play this well, you learn a lot of skills for almost every system.
#1
Theory becomes less important the lower the level of a player. For example if a super GM plays the 4th most popular move in the database this will be considered an inaccuracy (unless it's a surprise weapon etc). This happens because on that high of a level the oponnent will find the best way to take advantage of this move and obtain a small edge in the position. This small edge might be enough for a 2700 to win the game cause of the initiative or the control of a weak square. On the other hand, in the amateurs' level even if a player obtains this small edge from the beggining of the game nothing is over, because he might not even understand his positional advantage and even if he does so he might not be able to find a way to take advantage of it.
Just an example of my personnal experience: I played a game in which i got control of the d4 square as black with a backward pawn on d3 and i was able to control the square with my knight. This was a big advantage and i knew that but went on and exchanged lots of pieces resulting to a drawn position. I got this advantage because my oponnent didnt play according to theory but he wasnt punished for that. If that hapenned at the GM level the second player would have exploited this advantage.
I would like to conclude that the reason we are told to study tactics at lower level isn't that the other parts of the game aren't important. It's just because by studying games you will win or avoid to lose a lot more games than you will by knowing 15 moves of every possible line in one opening. It all comes down to what you want to use your studying time for. If we had infinite time to study chess we would be masters at evey aspect of the game. But now 1 hour of tactics training will help you much more than studying a line for 1 hour.
Thank's for any potential feedback.
Theory becomes less important the lower the level of a player. For example if a super GM plays the 4th most popular move in the database this will be considered an inaccuracy (unless it's a surprise weapon etc). This happens because on that high of a level the oponnent will find the best way to take advantage of this move and obtain a small edge in the position. This small edge might be enough for a 2700 to win the game cause of the initiative or the control of a weak square. On the other hand, in the amateurs' level even if a player obtains this small edge from the beggining of the game nothing is over, because he might not even understand his positional advantage and even if he does so he might not be able to find a way to take advantage of it.
Just an example of my personnal experience: I played a game in which i got control of the d4 square as black with a backward pawn on d3 and i was able to control the square with my knight. This was a big advantage and i knew that but went on and exchanged lots of pieces resulting to a drawn position. I got this advantage because my oponnent didnt play according to theory but he wasnt punished for that. If that hapenned at the GM level the second player would have exploited this advantage.
I would like to conclude that the reason we are told to study tactics at lower level isn't that the other parts of the game aren't important. It's just because by studying games you will win or avoid to lose a lot more games than you will by knowing 15 moves of every possible line in one opening. It all comes down to what you want to use your studying time for. If we had infinite time to study chess we would be masters at evey aspect of the game. But now 1 hour of tactics training will help you much more than studying a line for 1 hour.
Thank's for any potential feedback.
Not necessarily studying a line, just knowing the ideas/plans of your openings is enough, as pointed out by achja even some masters don't study "theory" at all, they just know what they are supposed to do.
80%+ of games in the <1600 (FIDE) level will be decided by tactics, so it pays to study tactics until you get to say 1900-2000 otb.
80%+ of games in the <1600 (FIDE) level will be decided by tactics, so it pays to study tactics until you get to say 1900-2000 otb.
I think the most important part of the chess is the " positional understanding ". I'm really a high rated player in tactics (at least in lichess) but my other aspects of chess like middle and endgames are not as strong as my tactical skill. And so you can see that i'm a 1700-1800 level player compared to my 2100 tactical skill. I think playing lots of games and analysing them is the best way to improve unless you enjoy challenging yourself with tactical puzzles (like me) :)
I think the most important part of the chess is the " positional understanding ". I'm really a high rated player in tactics (at least in lichess) but my other aspects of chess like middle and endgames are not as strong as my tactical skill. And so you can see that i'm a 1700-1800 level player compared to my 2100 tactical skill. I think playing lots of games and analysing them is the best way to improve unless you enjoy challenging yourself with tactical puzzles (like me) :)
Ardavan74 my tactics rating is even higher than yours but in game I'm worse than you :) Here I have 2400 TT rating but it doesn't mean I don't overlook simple tactics. To my mind tactics are very important but speed of seeing it also counts. On chess.com 2000 TT is my top limit. Unlike chess.com here you can think as much as you want. :)
OMG. Kingscrusher's TT rating is lower than mine. I'm significantly underrated. :)
@Ardavan74 and @OmegaDoom
The big difference between seeing tactics in tactics trainer and seeing them in actuall games is that on TT you KNOW that there is a tactical blow in the position and you are looking for it. On the other hand in an actual game you can play aggresively, passively, positionally, tacticly etc. So when you are playing a game you develop a plan and you try to follow it. Meanwhile if a tactical opportunity appears on the board its not that difficult to miss it if you are not on "tactical alert" in every move. Although you are likely to miss the move in a game, if you see the same position in a puzzle there are much more chances for you to find the correct move, because you know there is an imidate win.
The big difference between seeing tactics in tactics trainer and seeing them in actuall games is that on TT you KNOW that there is a tactical blow in the position and you are looking for it. On the other hand in an actual game you can play aggresively, passively, positionally, tacticly etc. So when you are playing a game you develop a plan and you try to follow it. Meanwhile if a tactical opportunity appears on the board its not that difficult to miss it if you are not on "tactical alert" in every move. Although you are likely to miss the move in a game, if you see the same position in a puzzle there are much more chances for you to find the correct move, because you know there is an imidate win.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.