Isn't this true?

Obviously, nobody managed to find the sarcasm in my post

But it still sparked an interesting discussion

Hi,

well, that is the Alex Yermolinsky as we like him. The statement warrants a chuckle but not more.

I actually think that for both chess and go, tactics is everything, unless you are fairly strong. (I am not.)
Joseki, fights, reading, tesuji, invasions, reductions and boundary play sequences are tactics. Provided you know your tactics well, strategic thinking
allows you to select the right tactics for a given situation and devise a long term plan.

Of course some easy rules like playing in the corner first and some rules for side extensions can be considered strategy, but that is really easy stuff. (Similar rules exist for chess.) Play away from thickness may be a nice rule to remember for a weaker player like me, but unless one knows by experience and can read out (many of ) the tactical sequences a move will entail, it is just mechanical playing.

It is recommended for both chess and go, that one plays with a strategy in mind. Otherwise one starts to make random plays. However in both
games the tactical encounters will decide everything, unless both sides make only small tactical mistakes.

Cheers

hackinger

Find it hard to get a handle how anyone who has had some glimpse into the depths and magic of either game can openly disparage one over the other, even if they have ultimately chosen one over the other. Disparaging an entire community, is obviously ignorant and, most unfortunate.


It's certainly possible that they were boring players.





This ^

_________________
Where've you been? Zatoichi could slice the board in half, put it back together again and rearrange the position so fast that no-one even knew he'd drawn his sword - and he was blind. ~ John Fairbairn

Came across this video this afternoon while doing a search that had absolutely nothing to do with Alex Yermolinsky. What can I say, it belongs here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzSgJDdwnYg

Yermolinsky's poor team mate is so disgusted he can barely focus on his game.

_________________
Where've you been? Zatoichi could slice the board in half, put it back together again and rearrange the position so fast that no-one even knew he'd drawn his sword - and he was blind. ~ John Fairbairn

I would say - in both games tactics isn't everything UNLESS you are really strong.
Strategy is just a crutch to compensate for our inability to read deep enough.

For what is strategy? It is, in a nutshell, planning based on some general principles. These same principles can be used to evaluate positions you imagine at the deep end of your reading skill limitations. But, as any 'general' principles they only apply in some positions, even if its in most positions. And they only apply to some approximation, even if it is a good approximation in most positions. This is good enough for most of us, but when you're at the top, its insufficient. I think this is at the core of Jasiek's complaint that top Go pros cannot explain positions in terms of 'general principles' - they simply do not think like that.

Here is the idea:
Weak players think for example:
'Main diagonal is good to have, so lets take it' in chess or 'he is strong there so I should not play too close' in Go.

Strong players think for example:
'Main diagonal is good, so maybe take it, now lets calculate all the possible tactics to see if it is good in THIS position or if there is something better' in chess or 'he is strong there so lets not spend too much time calculating tactics resulting from playing close, but lets do some reading anyways since in THIS position it might be different' in Go.

In my experience, beginners use only tactics (since they don't know strategy), then as they grow stronger strategy takes more and more the center stage, then as they grow stronger still strategy starts receding into the background again. Both in chess and in Go.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Nice post Bantari. Don't think I've ever seen this idea so clearly stated or evident. And surely not for both games in the same post. Perhaps now I can feel a little less anxiety about strong dan players who go around KGS saying shape is meaningless

_________________
Where've you been? Zatoichi could slice the board in half, put it back together again and rearrange the position so fast that no-one even knew he'd drawn his sword - and he was blind. ~ John Fairbairn

Hmm but saying "shape is not everything" is very very very different than saying "shape is nothing".
"Shape is meaningless" is very much misleading I think.

It is hard to estimate the percentage but I would guess that for at least half of the opening/midgame moves (yose can be exception) even the strongest players rely more on shape and strategic concepts than precise reading. I say that based on pro game commentaries I read so far.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Perhaps he can explain how the game he thinks so highly of is a good game compared to Go when its rules are totally irrational and it is so obviously flawed that many people could improve upon it within five minutes with little effort. Not that I have anything against chess, by the way.

_________________
"Those who calculate greatly will win; those who calculate only a little will lose, but what of those who don't make any calculations at all!? This is why everything must be calculated, in order to foresee victory and defeat."-The Art of War