![]() This is why I agree with (good night for A-K, two forums and I'm agreeing with him across both) in that the middle game is purely tactical. But, none the less, once the guns spring into life, the game has become real-time and a single slip of judgement in the heat of battle, or an error upon his counterpart's behalf, and all could be lost or won. If everything goes to plan, like a text-book opening game, then, yes, I suppose his tactical decisions are highly informed by his strategy. That same CO could be leading his platoon, company or even battalion in their quest to achieve the strategy when the battle begins. Strategy is what a CO may devise in his tent, with his sub-ordinates, whilst pouring over a map of allied and enemy dispositions, terrain, weather, etc. Let us first consider the difference betwixt strategy and tactics. ![]() Tactics v Strategy Rmann thanks for the post! But I must disagree a little. Very often the aim of combinations is not, per se, to increase your relative force (capture enemy pieces), but to gain a positional advantage (like, say, a queenside majority, enforced pawn structure weaknesses, or like). ![]() But quite apart from chance opportunities, I always keep a strategic objective in mind when evaluating tactical possibilities. The opening - or, to be more precise, the pawn structure - lays down the strategic framework from which tactics flow - based on opportunities created by the actual, complete situation on the board (not just officers). But I find I must disagree with ace_kyi - middle game is, for me, not pure tactics. So, I have a "couple" of good, in-depth books about selected openings, and another couple of books giving a more general overview, all supplemented by the actually rather good GameKnot DB, and that's the foundation for my middle game. But right now I am simply not good enough. Maybe, when I'm at shamash' level - which will take a little time, but I'm going to get there! - I will be able to ignore that. ![]() I seriously dislike the feeling of being handicapped right out from the opening simply because I am wading into an opening without any idea of what's up and down there. Middle game is where the real fun starts! I agree with John: book openings are the way to go - for me. If you come out of the middle game with significant material or positional advantage the endgame will be a piece of cake for you. Most chess instructors advice the average players to spend more time 80% on tactics than the opening preparation. With practice you will have more tactical skills. Tactical skills of yours exploit on the opponent's weakness or mistakes but you have to see it. If no players make the mistakes, the game will be ended in draw theoretically. Even GMs can make mistakes in the middle game and more mistakes will be made by average players. If you can play at least equal up to 15 moves, then mastering in tactics become the cornerstone to win the game. The reason you select few openings is that since there are so many openings, you cannot study them all. With this view in mind, practice the few openings so that you can play up to 15 moves without much error. Although there is no sharp line of demarcation between where opening moves end and middle game begins, IMHO, I believe after 15 moves most games will be in the middle game. In the same way, in chess, you develop the pieces in good positions and in most efficient way within a short time. Middle Game is pure tactics, if openings are equal! Chess can be compared to a war and battlefields. It's about surviving a horrible opening and by force of will and drive coming up with winningĬombinations, sacrifices, or transformative positional gymnastics that lead to a dynamic & In having the intitiative, that their moves flow effotlessly into a winning middlegame. I have heard there are players who coming out of the starting gate enjoy so much of a lead To come up with a strong and winning middlegame. It forces me to be super-creative and pull out magical finds from the position, I get in such a mess, I get behind, I get outplayed. It was about being motivated and taking out the opponent. It wasn't about opening and middlegame and endgame. (and I've seen him box personally, and he would draw lots of blood), Years later, whenever he would get in the ring, he would psych himself up and say,Īnd he would go out with his huge fists ready to kill him, The very first day he had it, someone stole it. He saved and saved and one day he bought a bicycle. When Ali had been a boy in Louisville, Kentucky, he had a paper route that he delivered on So let's see what illumination we can get from one of the greatest prizefighters ever: Gentlemen, this is not about solving a puzzle.īobby Fischer put it this way, Chess is like boxing: When the worst openings make the best middlegames the question is >
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |