Tactics are the Servants of Strategy

That quote by Mikhail Botvinnik has to be one of the most accurate quotes about any subject ever.

I seem to have finally gotten past my overall laziness when it comes to studying tactics.  I am doing quite a few puzzles each day and am generally working harder towards improving.

But now...I think that it's time to begin gradually working in some positional themes.

For example, last night I played a game against a club member whom I have played numerous times.  He is very difficult to beat because he rarely makes tactical blunders and he has a good flair for positional play.

We played a King's Indian and rather than face the Bayonet Attack I decided to play the ...exd4 version.  I wanted to get a solid position on my own terms rather than to deal with the typical kingside vs queenside motif in the KID.

I had achieved what I felt was a playable position when I got the idea to play ...h6 and ...g5 in order to limit the scope of his dark squared bishop.  I knew that doing so would create something of a weakness on f5, but I said Fischer's famous quote to myself..."You gotta give squares to get squares."  The problem of course was that I wasn't really getting any squares in return.  And my initial goal to lock down the kingside from the dark squared bishop wound up just being superficial.

So I am hoping that if I start working in some positional themes along with the tactical work that I will begin to take that next step towards 1800.

To that end I am trying to decide whether I should read How to Reassess Your Chess by Jeremy Silman or Strategic Play by Mark Dvoretsky.

I think that Silman's book might make more sense at this point.

To see the game I am describing above please visit: http://www.chess.com/blog/ChrisWainscott/tactics-are-the-servants-of-strategy