Author: Francis Monkman
Date: 08:49:21 05/20/99
We all (I imagine) like to see the pieces 'flying around the board', as we admire the 'tactical skill' of the player moving them. Perhaps it predisposes us to admire 'tactical play', and to denigrate the idea of 'strategy' as belonging to the 'minute positional advantage' school. Nothing could be further from the truth! There are two categories of 'tactical win', and they are quite different. The first is made possible by an opponent's blunder, or at least a move which allows a winning combination, otherwise unplayable. The second (and by far the most important, from the point of view of 'chess truth') is made possible precisely by strategic preparation. Didn't you read somewhere that "tactics are strategy in action"? No doubt you, like me, spent some hours with books entitled "Combination in Chess" (or similar), and of course enjoyed finding the solutions (so much easier when one has been told that 'there is a good move to be found'!), but did you ever think "how was such a position arrived at"? I once said to one GM, "it's not finding the good moves that's the problem, it's creating the positions out of which they arise" -- "Ah", he said. We all know that the old concept of strategy was insufficient -- it correctly identified 'key factors', but failed to allow for the 'dynamic flexibility' needed (and sought throughout this century) to reveal their operation. Those who have studied computer analysis of top games (and particularly programmers) might be interested in the following, quoted from Suba's excellent "Dynamic Chess Strategy": "I ...suggest such an approach as a panacea against opening extravagances. Do not try to punish your opponent by your very next moves, try to hold on to an advantage, however minimal, that does not flagrantly upset the dynamic equilibrium of the position." Spoken about openings (where strategic foundations are laid, after all), but this could be applied as a principle generally. Computer analysis reveals so many positions where the machine goes for the 'strongest' move, while the game in question often continues with a quieter move (barely 'noticed' by the machine, but often turning out to have 'forcing' characteristics, NB), that leads to a much more convincing climax. How to program 'dynamic equilibrium', though? I'll give you an example, in parting, of 'strategy in action' -- from a famous game between Smyslov and Botvinnik (WC 1954, 14th game). Black embarks upon a 'strategic sacrifice' (certainly no 'immediate gains' here), and yet Smyslov's fine idea (made possible by a weakness in Botvinnik's ninth move) transforms the position in Black's long-term favour: r1b2rk1/pp1n1pbp/1qpp2p1/4p1B1/2PPP1n1/2N2NPP/PP3PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - ...exd4! Na4 Qa6 hxg4 b5 Nxd4 bxa4 Nxc6 Qxc6 e5 Qxc4 Bxa8 Nxe5 Rc1 at which point Black clearly stands better. White obviously had alternatives, I suggest their exploration, with computer and brain as allies (also Smyslov's notes). Francis
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.