Author: Mark Young
Date: 10:55:18 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 13:42:54, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 23, 2001 at 13:38:24, Mark Young wrote: > >>On July 23, 2001 at 13:13:04, Kevin Stafford wrote: >> >>>>>Kramnik is a positionally player >>>> >>>>That doesn't mean nothing. >>>>Chess is 99% tactics , you can be a very strong positional player but you will >>>>fail miserably against a strong tactician. >>>> >>> >>>Well, Kasparov is by all means a strong tactician, and Kramnik faired pretty >>>well against him, so your point doesn't really mean much in this context. >>> >>>-Kevin >> >>This is a silly argument, "strong tactician" and a "positional player" is more a >>matter of style. To say GM Kramnik is not a strong tactician is just inaccurate. >>All the best positional player in chess history were also great tacticians. To >>be a great positional player you must be a strong tactician. > > >Thanks, Mark. >Infact I have not said that Kramnik is not a strong tactician ! I was just >replying that to be a great positional player without tactics ability is >worthless. I was just pointing out to be one of the best players in the world you must be a strong tactician, and a strong positional players. To say Kasparov is not a great positional play would also be incorrect. It comes down to style and the aggression of the chess player’s personality more then the ability to understand positional concepts or to calculate accurately long complex variations. > > >Regards.
This page took 0 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.