Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:57:38 06/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 1998 at 18:21:40, Hristo wrote: >On June 14, 1998 at 14:45:32, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On June 14, 1998 at 10:51:37, Don Dailey wrote: >>>We could simply use this definition: >>> >>> Tactics: Things we can directly calculate. >>> >>> Positional: Things we must guess at. >> >>>- Don >> >>Strong chess players "calculate" positional stuff as good as tactical >>stuff. >>They can show with evidence and facts that the move was a positional >>blunder. >>You cannot call tactics SAVE and positonal things GUESSING. >> >>Positional stuff can be transformed into material. >>Tactical advantage is material. >>Positional stuff is material transformed in something else. >> >>Like Energy. Tactics is physic-laws on materia, positional is energy in >>those processes. >> >>But tactics are not more accurate than positional. >>Both are as accurate. >>Thats what MY opinion is over the years studying people like Seirawan, >>Bronstein, Kosashvili or Kohlweyer/Schaefer fighting against the machine >>I operated, or i watched them killing the machine. >> >>How can you say a positional advantage is less real, just YOU are unable >>to COUNT - better - bean-count - it accurate ! >> >>YOU are the problem. You cannot measure energy as good as measuring >>mass. >>Thats YOUR problem. Buy a new scales. > > >Sir !!! > >I'm so glad to see this !!! >I think you are absolutely correct about the mass-energy example in >relation to the chess game. There is only one small "correction" or >"adjustment" the mass and energy are interchangable, because the >objective of the game determines the absolute "mass" of a position. > >Best Regards. >Hristo this is all pure horse-hockey. A GM plays a move that is considered "positional" for no better reason than he has seen that sort of "idea" occur many times, and it either turned out bad, or turned out good. But the "turn out" was tactical in nature. Same thing with generals conducting a war, or any other sort of "game" you can think of... The book "My System" has lots of neat positional concepts.. but they are all illustrated as tactical things that are too far off to be understood. But the stuff about mass and energy is "hockey" (US slang for "crap") as this is not the same thing at all. But a backward pawn isn't a weakness if it can't be captured, and if defending it doesn't tie up too many pieces to create weaknesses elsewhere. I believe that *every* positional idea is nothing more than long-range "intuitional" tactics... and the more experience I have (or a GM has) the more he uses experience to help avoid tactics... and they *all* make mistakes as a result...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.