new member (General)

by Don Lester, Thursday, October 12, 2006, 04:57 (7005 days ago) @ Tony Kosten

? What about Glenn's strategy stuff, do you really find that tactical?
? Obviously you would greatly beenfit from the coaching, have you tried it
? yet?

Maybe what is driving my perception is a definitions barrier. When I think of something as tactical I think of a position that you can calculate the solution. Most puzzles are structured that way, which is the whole point of the tactical section, and most endgame scenarios fall into this category as well (which is most of what Glenn Flear has done the past few months). That isn't to say anything negative about what he is doing, it just isn't the kind of long term strategic planning I was describing in my earlier message.

Admittedly I have spent a lot of time on endgames. I have watched Roman Dzindzichashvili's endgame series to pass time while riding my exercise bike more times than I could ever count, and have all but worn out the copy of Pal Benko's Chess Endgame Lessons I found on eBay last year. Almost everything I have read about learning chess has said you are better off studying endgames first, and I did.

When I think of strategy, I think of moves that have no immediate tactical advantage, and to the strategically challenged (like me) they will oftentimes even look like wasted moves. These are the moves you make to ultimately induce a tactical opportunity, or moves you make to marginally improve your position when the position is closed and there aren't yet any attacking opportunities.

It is this more subtle aspect of chess that is still a complete mystery to me. I have recently begun spending a lot more time studying pawn structure as that seems to be a major key to this whole puzzle, but I could be wrong. To be honest, I just don't know. If I knew more about what I don't know, I would better know how to proceed (if that makes any sense).

You may be right about the coaching thing too. I have often felt (perhaps incorrectly) that I wasn't ready for that because I still have significant holes that I know how to fill. Since I started studying at the endgame side before anything else, I really am not very good at all at openings. Those have two aspects to them, from my naive perspective. One side is just memorizing move sequences, which is about as exciting as watching paint dry. The other aspect does touch quite a bit on my whole middle game mystery. With true opening knowledge you play toward a strategy you have had in mind since the beginning of the game. I am a long way from that kind of proactive play! The best I can muster right now is that when I am in a relatively even position in the late middle game I can usually trade it down to a position I know I can win.

If none of this makes any sense to you, don't feel bad. It doesn't make any sense to me either ;)