Best positional chess players in history? • page 1/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

nickdav10

#1

Who is the best positional chess players in the history? I want to learn their games.

Stockfish

I think Napoleon was quite positional (on the battleground). But even he lost to a machine. (The mechanical Turk). But seriously, if you ask in history all the best is now. If you ask in historic perspective my guess is that Capablanca is one of the best.

SarKarlsen17

edited

#4

@nickdav10 said in #1:

Who is the best positional chess players in the history? I want to learn their games.

Magnus Carlsen (world champion)
Viswanathan Anand (world champion)
Jose Raul Capablanca (world champion)
Anatoly Karpov (world champion)+(A prophylactic aura)
Vasyl Ivanchuk

If you want you can (should/must) also study Garry Kasparov's games.
But be committed. You have asked for players' names. Now stick to them. You will improve a lot.

@nickdav10 said in #1: > Who is the best positional chess players in the history? I want to learn their games. 1) Magnus Carlsen (world champion) 2) Viswanathan Anand (world champion) 3) Jose Raul Capablanca (world champion) 4) Anatoly Karpov (world champion)+(A prophylactic aura) 5) Vasyl Ivanchuk If you want you can (should/must) also study Garry Kasparov's games. But be committed. You have asked for players' names. Now stick to them. You will improve a lot.

lizani

#5

As I've said elsewhere, you won't find 'positional players' in modern chess which is based on concrete move by move calculation. If you go back in the mist of time, I would consider the following to have a positional approach (but of course all were very good at tactics as well)-
Capablanca
Rubinstein
Alekhine
Botvinnik

As I've said elsewhere, you won't find 'positional players' in modern chess which is based on concrete move by move calculation. If you go back in the mist of time, I would consider the following to have a positional approach (but of course all were very good at tactics as well)- Capablanca Rubinstein Alekhine Botvinnik

kindaspongey edited

#6

@lizani said in #5:

As I've said elsewhere, you won't find 'positional players' in modern chess which is based on concrete move by move calculation. If you go back in the mist of time, ...
"... Tactical analysis is an error-prone activity. Overlooking one important finesse can completely change the result of the analysis. If it is possible to decide on your move on purely positional considerations then you should do so; it is quicker and more reliable. There are, of course, many positions in which concrete analysis is essential, but even in these cases you should not analyse specific variations more than necessary. ... Although precise analysis plays some part in most chess situations, positional thinking is just as important. ... Unfortunately, if you have little natural talent for it, positional thinking is one of the most difficult aspects of chess to learn. ... If you have played over and studied thousands of games, and seen all the different patterns and plans which can arise from the main openings, then you already have a good start when it comes to positional play. Most players do not have the time for this sort of study and must focus their efforts where they will do the most good. This really means concentrating on the types of middlegame position which arise from your opening repertoire. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998)
"Have you made any conscious changes to the style of your game?
Over time you get more positional. I do think though that I sometimes play more positionally than I should because I do like to have an active position. But I don't want to go in for very long complications because that's not really necessary." - part of interview of GM Pia Cramling (~2016)

@lizani said in #5: > As I've said elsewhere, you won't find 'positional players' in modern chess which is based on concrete move by move calculation. If you go back in the mist of time, ... "... Tactical analysis is an error-prone activity. Overlooking one important finesse can completely change the result of the analysis. If it is possible to decide on your move on purely positional considerations then you should do so; it is quicker and more reliable. There are, of course, many positions in which concrete analysis is essential, but even in these cases you should not analyse specific variations more than necessary. ... Although precise analysis plays some part in most chess situations, positional thinking is just as important. ... Unfortunately, if you have little natural talent for it, positional thinking is one of the most difficult aspects of chess to learn. ... If you have played over and studied thousands of games, and seen all the different patterns and plans which can arise from the main openings, then you already have a good start when it comes to positional play. Most players do not have the time for this sort of study and must focus their efforts where they will do the most good. This really means concentrating on the types of middlegame position which arise from your opening repertoire. ..." - GM John Nunn (1998) "Have you made any conscious changes to the style of your game? Over time you get more positional. I do think though that I sometimes play more positionally than I should because I do like to have an active position. But I don't want to go in for very long complications because that's not really necessary." - part of interview of GM Pia Cramling (~2016)

#7

holyskdsaq1234

#8

probably me i beat up david goggins irl and stole cam easties egyptian propety

Wilhelm Steinitz

Years ago this question usually led to a lot of replies saying Mikhail Tal.