If you play over a Tal game, you'll see a lot of crazy tactics. But if you look at a position from Tal's games, you'll see his great strategy -- good development, open lines, etc.

In the end, the best move is the best move no matter how you classify it. But you should understand strategy and tactics if you want to give yourself the best chances of winning.

There are many books you can buy that try explain some of these things, but it's difficult to recommend anything in particular.

The best i can find in terms of internet sources are:

1)http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/a...
There are loads of interesting articles on there. Read the articles by Heisman(Novice Nook) for beginner stuff, and Dvoretsky(The Instructor) for more advances articles. But everything is worth looking at.

2)http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/c...

Dvoretsky talks about Capablanca walking by a group of master analyzing some endgame. The masters are all standing there, calculating variation after variation. Capablanca just shakes his head, and says, no, no, you're thinking about this all wrong. Here, let me show you. So, he just takes all the white pieces off the board, and then puts them back on the board where they need to be: knight on d4, King on c3, pawns on these certain squares, etc. Then he says - this is what white needs to do - the move order to get here isn't necessarily important in this relatively quiet endgame.

<You are obviously a Kasparov fan that cant stand the fact he lost and look for excuses and use abusive language toward any who dont worship Kasparov.>Yeah right. I'm one of those people in cg who regarded that Kasparov forfeited his title in 1993. Does a Kasparov fan do such a thing? I definitely like going over Kasparov's games, but I'm definitely not his fan. He hasn't done that many things ethically and right to warrant such a recognition from me.

Besides, those stuff that I told you about, they're not made-up excuses. They'd actually happened and it has even being discussed before either on this page or in Kasparov's page. So next time please do your homework before barking at other people.

For the chess analysis, I wish I was in the same level as you, I don't begin to imagine myself critisising Kasparov or the powerfull Deep-Blue. The only thing I ever thought in relate to those two, was that when Kasparov played 7..h7 in the last game and lost dreadfuly, I thought that this was a move even I wouldn't have made...

on the contrary. You should analyse any games. In fact championship games are very good for improving, because then you see high calibre chess and can learn a lot from it.

7...h6 was a bit ambiguos at the time. Yes, some crushing defeats for black, but it was thought Db wouldnt sac the knight on e6. All other computers at the time were replying Ne4 which leaves black with a good opening development and no structural problems. Kasparov might have tried it to trick the computer, but Dbs opening book was better than expected and he got himself in a desperate positing quite quickly. At any rate, even if he played 7...Bd6 the theory leads to a small advantage for white in the opening with a pretty open game, where Db excells and Kasparov would have had to defend OTB a position he never played before with black, while being tired. It was a wrong opening choice even without the 7...h6. Check out the first game. I will post a way for DB to draw the game soon.

Cheers,

click for larger view

This is probably the only way to defend the position from here. Black could have saved himself from cramped positions with the earlier 28. a5! as well.

Black wouldn't be held to passive defence with 34. e4!! and instead could generate promising counter play on white's structural weaknesses and many holes on the kingside and center. In fact Black could be able to win if Deep Blue slipped up positionally.