Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 14:10:31 07/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2001 at 16:14:15, Kevin Stafford 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. > > >I did not chose the terms, and I never said that Kramnik is not a strong >tactician (or that Kasparov is not a strong positional player for that matter). >I was simply pointing out why the point made above was indeed "silly" as you >suggest. > >-Kevin The point made above was just to stress the importance of the tactics , let me add the following inspired words by I.Marin : "Chess is ONLY moves in a chessboard, chess is only tactics. If you calculate thoroughly enough you will beat Kasparov and everybody else because "positional mistakes" simply don't exist: they are simply tactical errors with long term consequences." Best 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.