Sorry to track you down like this, but I've got a question for you, over on Larry Melvyn Evans. It's a serious question (see Game Collection: 1946 US Open, Pittsburgh, PA).

By the way, I enjoyed reading your profile!

Thanks in advance.

This game was played at the Game Collection: USA - USSR Radio Match 1945

Smyslov played 2d board, scoring +2 -0 =0 vs. Reshevsky. The USSR won 15.5 - 4.5.

Rusbase http://al20102007.narod.ru/matches/...

Get a copy of Smyslov's best games. As it says in the intro there are loads of tactcial games with sacs and attacks on f2 and f7 galore.

All these great players know how to calcualte and get their hands dirty with tactics when the positions demanded it.

It is their ability to squeeze remote wins out of positions that differ from a bog standard kingside hack-sac-attack that makes them great players.

When you play other good players you will not get a sniff at their King unless you are very lucky.

Their skill is in probing and creating a slight weakness, usually with hints and masked threats of tactical play.

They work on the weakness at the same time trying not creating one of their own. Very difficult. Too me much harder than playing a sac-sac mate combo.

If they have too create a weakness in their own camp (remember Fischer's quote: 'To get squares you have to give squares.' ) then they make sure it is not as serious as their opponents.

Then they create another weakness...If material is equal then you usually need two to work on.

Properly done the whole game is a sheer joy to play over.

Trying to play like this without positional judgement and the years it requires to build up this skill and it usually turns into a dog's dinner position where your normal hacker has created that many weakness's in his own position he resorts to two move tricks tactics or a half-cocked attack against a solid King position. (trust me on this.)

I agree 100%, I'll choose watching a deep, positional struggle over sac-sac-mate anyday! Although, after building a superior strategic position, the winning player <must> find the most forcing winning tactical sequence at it's first opportunity! Anything else is weak and tarnishes the beauty of the game..

Wise words! All too often at our level I have seen a player doing all the correct things and failing to it push it home tactically when the key moment arose.

Or the losing player deciding, quite rightly, that passive holding on defence is no good and starts slinging pawns or the exchange at their opponents. This sudden turn of events throws the winning player off balance and they lose.

Again, at our level, there is nothing worse than having a strategically won game against a player who refuses to lay down and has counter play.

I always enjoy playing over crash-bang-wallop games as I enjoy getting involved in that type of game and I can hold my own.

These converting wins with a slight postional edge games are out of reach. I'll see a trick/trap and go for it. I can't help it. The trouble is often they work.

So somewhere along the line I decided no need to get any better positionally as I can trick my way to wins.

Of course being a pig-headed player with my opions on how the game should be played never helped.

There is a good book by Chernev on Capablanca's endings. A few times I put one of the key positions into a computer and took Capa's side to see if I could convert the win...

....I've turned some of Capa's masterpieces into complete losses within half a dozen or so moves.

My Conclussion:

I am a crap chess player. No.

Capablanca's opponents were and Capa was actually lost in all these games.