Why Strategic Theory Comes First

It is necessary to teach the strategic principles that govern sound play before students fully understand why they are necessary and effective at an experiential level. Otherwise, students tend to develop bad habits and a haphazard style of play that has no foundation upon the strategic realities inherent to the game, even if they have developed a relative, tactical proficiency. For example, teaching students to recognize tactical patterns without also providing them with a sound framework for understanding how to utilize small advantages to create a long-term, strategic plan of attack leaves them ill-prepared to counter best play. It would be analogous to teaching someone how to operate a car without teaching them the rules of the road: they might be a technically proficient operator of the motor vehicle, but they wouldn’t possess the knowledge necessary to arrive safely at their intended destination.

Indisputably, there are strategic realities inherent to the game of chess that simply must be acknowledged, regardless of native, tactical ability: for tournament play is designed to pit players of equal ability against one another; and strategy remains an essential component of effectual play. Pointedly, if an opponent’s king security isn’t weakened, all of his pieces are defended, and no possibility of a double-attack exists, playing a strategic (positional) move is the only remaining option. Certainly, all tactical opportunities stem from sound, positional play. Therefore, finding squares that magnify the influence and mobility of one’s pieces and better coordinate their ability to flexibly shift to defend and attack is a primary strategic goal and an important weapon in a player’s arsenal of skills. Moreover, an opinion (however imperfect) based upon some well-established, strategic facts is naturally superior to an opinion based upon false assumptions devoid of strategic understanding.

Here's an example: a player is certain to lose a minor piece (knight or bishop) and figures to at least capture a pawn in exchange. His logic is indisputable, tactically--for going down 2 points is infinitely preferable to going down 3 points! Unfortunately, he neglects to consider the strategic implications of his choice--for in so capturing the pawn, he opens a file (attacking alley) that his opponent gains control of--and eventually loses the game due to this loss of space. This is why the intuitive understanding of positional play remains the province of human beings, just as computers reign tactically.

Finally, studying strategic theory conveys an important life lesson: for every situation we face, there is an appropriate and effectual strategy. This notion, once engrained, provokes an intellectually conditioned (as opposed to emotional) response to life’s many adversities.