What is good 'technique' in chess?

I've been wondering about this and I can't explain it myself so that's why I'm posting this question to you people.... What exactly is good chess technique?

I recently read somewhere that Capablanca has exceptional technique. Also, years ago, I would play a Cubano co-worker (Eddie) during our lunch breaks where he would utterly destroy me 97% of the time.... if and when I did win it was because he wasn't paying attention.  Regardless, he never failed to say as he swiftly maneuvered his pieces, "You like to play, that's good! But you have no technique!" 

So does anyone care to expound on what is good chess technique? Thx in advance-

Endgame technique is where the term comes up most often, so I'll start there.

Think about the basic king+rook vs king checkmate. You force the opponent's king towards the edge of the board by using your king and rook in concert. If you know how to do it, you can do it flawlessly, in the fewest number of moves. If you don't, you tend to blunder around wildly for awhile until you either figure it out, get lucky, queen another pawn, or run out of moves (50 move rule). Even if you win, you could have sloppy technique--that is, you got there, but in a haphazard way, not a precise, calculated way. The bishop+knight checkmate for example, requires good technique. Endgame technique refers to your knowledge of how to play specific endgames, as well as your ability to play them correctly.

When someone says "and now it's a matter of technique" what they're saying is "the game is theoretically won, all that we have to see now is whether or not the player can properly execute his winning strategy". 

Someone with good technique who has gained an advantage will secure his advantage, deny his opponent counterplay, improve his position, and only then go for the kill. Someone with bad technique (or no technique, if you prefer), who has gained an advantage will immediately seek to go on the attack and win on the spot, whether the win is there or not. Often this leads to a failed attack, and gives the opponent opportunities to gain his own compensating advantages. For example, one player may go all out on a kingside attack, completely neglecting his queenside and center. When the attack fails, his pieces are completely out of position to defend his queenside, and his opponent can execute his own attack. 

It's about playing the right moves, for the right reasons, in the right order. Being methodical. 

To me it means finishing a won game by making use of the salient features in the most efficient way. It's a combination of knowing what to do (strategic ideas) and the best way to do it (calculate through any complications).

You might imagine maneuvering your pieces in an endgame to create a passed pawn, then actually making the passed pawn, then queening the passed pawn. And all during these moves, all your pieces defend each other so there are no tactics, your opponent threatens a sacrifice in front of your king for a perpetual, but you calculate that the checks eventually end, so you spend your move on advancing your pawn.

Awesome! Good responses and very well explained!

If you can do long division by hand, and always get the correct answer, then your long division technique is flawless.

If you can take a pile of wood and build a beautiful, sturdy table, then someone might say you have good carpentry technique.

It means you know how to execute a series of steps to achieve a goal, and, usually, you do this one after another to achieve a big picture goal. I sometimes think of it as a "chain of conversions" to reach some goal.

For example, you play a specific opening, and you get a pawn majority on the queenside, and then you exchange pieces to reach an endgame, then you convert your pawn majority into a passed pawn, and you win. You could say that you used a number of techniques or methods, one after the other. Or someone watching the game may just say that you had excellent technique.

Are technique and style related? I heard someone once say lower rated players, more specificially, non-masters, don't have style.

But it seems to me they are connected. For example, rtr's example of the carpenter. Not all tables are the same. They all require technique, but are different. The difference can only be style.

"The more technique there is, the less there is." Pablo Picasso 

Obviously maintining an artists' "mystique".

There is usually only one correct technique for the desired outcome. In chess, style is just a way of saying "collection of weaknesses".

Really? So Carlsen and Fischer and Karpov and all the other great chess players all played the same way?

leiph18 is one of the smart ones here. Give a listen.

Yes, really. In any chess position, there is almost always one best line. Playing anything other than that best line is a mistake. Humans are not capable of playing mistake free.

Of course Carlsen and Fischer and Karpov do not play the same way. They all have their own sets of weaknesses.

Technique and style? Isn't it in a way the same?

You can have an aggresive playing style or you can be more defensive.

Depeds on the position.  Some call for attack (if you get something concrete from the attack like a permanent positional advantage or transition into a better endgame) and some call for defense (to cope with the opponent's initiative or minimize concessions.)

rtr1129 wrote:

kleelof wrote:

rtr1129 wrote:

In chess, style is just a way of saying "collection of weaknesses".

Really? So Carlsen and Fischer and Karpov and all the other great chess players all played the same way?

Yes, really. In any chess position, there is almost always one best line. Playing anything other than that best line is a mistake. Humans are not capable of playing mistake free.

Of course Carlsen and Fischer and Karpov do not play the same way. They all have their own sets of weaknesses.

------------;;;;---------

I must be the most stylish chess player in the world. :)