- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

what is the definition of "positional" and "tactical" players?

#2

Good positional play is based on tactical nuances (Yusupov/Dvoretzky). Nuff said.

Good positional play is based on tactical nuances (Yusupov/Dvoretzky). Nuff said.
#3

@Sarg0n said in #2:

Good positional play is based on tactical nuances (Yusupov/Dvoretzky). Nuff said.

Ok but what is positional chess?

@Sarg0n said in #2: > Good positional play is based on tactical nuances (Yusupov/Dvoretzky). Nuff said. Ok but what is positional chess?
#4

i think positional is when you prefer thinking about how a move will better your position eg connected rooks , pawn stuctures , safe squares for the king to escape on , moves that control more squares etc and tactical players are good at finding combinations and tactics (i dont know the exact defition though)

i think positional is when you prefer thinking about how a move will better your position eg connected rooks , pawn stuctures , safe squares for the king to escape on , moves that control more squares etc and tactical players are good at finding combinations and tactics (i dont know the exact defition though)
#5

These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments.

These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments.
#6

@lizani said in #5:

These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments.

Ok, nice thanks

@lizani said in #5: > These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments. Ok, nice thanks
#7

@lizani said in #5:

These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments.
I think that amateurs understandably try to make sense of what they read.
"... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position ... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn ­structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the com­batants should be included in the decision pro­cess as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be aban­doned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005)
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf
"... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
"... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. ... However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf
Georgios Souleidis (2011): "How would you characterise your style?"
GM Hikaru Nakamura: "Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space."
"... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ..." - Wilhelm Steinitz (1885)
"positional
A move, a maneuver or a style of play that is based on an exploitation of small advantages." - IM Jeremy Silman (1999)

@lizani said in #5: > These are definitions used by amateurs to make themselves feel better. You cannot be a GM without being well rounded, and a GM should find the best move in a position whether it involves tactical calculations or positional assessments. I think that amateurs understandably try to make sense of what they read. "... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position ... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn ­structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the com­batants should be included in the decision pro­cess as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be aban­doned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005) http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf "... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky "... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin "... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. ... However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf Georgios Souleidis (2011): "How would you characterise your style?" GM Hikaru Nakamura: "Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space." "... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ..." - Wilhelm Steinitz (1885) "positional A move, a maneuver or a style of play that is based on an exploitation of small advantages." - IM Jeremy Silman (1999)
#8

I contemplated for years, searched deep inside me what it could be positional of tactical but all that I found was a small clumsy inner Tal, that's all.

I contemplated for years, searched deep inside me what it could be positional of tactical but all that I found was a small clumsy inner Tal, that's all.
#9

I am inclined to agree with @Sarg0n in post 2, and @lizani in post 5. The distinction is largely artificial. I wouldn't go so far as @lizani , to say that the purpose is to make lower class players feel good about ourselves, but I do agree that the distinction is artificial.

I believe that "theory", as many of us first understand it, is more than just the accumulated experience of so many thousand games per month in the assorted books, magazines and databases. It is the pinnacle of learning, the "what we all can say we have learned from all this", the accepted general wisdom accrued from the total experience of chess praxis. Something separate, something above. I also believe that many of us are mistaken. How many, and more important how much, I do not know.

John Watson, in his excellent book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy makes a strong argument for what he calls rule independence. Modern masters and grandmasters don't make decisions based on abstractions, they do so on the basis of concrete calculations. And furthermore, modern "theory" evolves not on the basis of what is "theoretically better", but on the basis of what has worked. I find it hard to argue with the thesis he presents.

Backing away from chess for a moment, I suspect that "theory", both in chess and in other endeavors, can be likened to fairy tales. The lies we tell to children, because they help us to understand the world. These lies to children don't tell us the truth, but they help us put experience within a mental framework that might work pretty well sometimes, but not always. Subject to future correction.

I am inclined to agree with @Sarg0n in post 2, and @lizani in post 5. The distinction is largely artificial. I wouldn't go so far as @lizani , to say that the purpose is to make lower class players feel good about ourselves, but I do agree that the distinction is artificial. I believe that "theory", as many of us first understand it, is more than just the accumulated experience of so many thousand games per month in the assorted books, magazines and databases. It is the pinnacle of learning, the "what we all can say we have learned from all this", the accepted general wisdom accrued from the total experience of chess praxis. Something separate, something above. I also believe that many of us are mistaken. How many, and more important how much, I do not know. John Watson, in his excellent book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy makes a strong argument for what he calls rule independence. Modern masters and grandmasters don't make decisions based on abstractions, they do so on the basis of concrete calculations. And furthermore, modern "theory" evolves not on the basis of what is "theoretically better", but on the basis of what has worked. I find it hard to argue with the thesis he presents. Backing away from chess for a moment, I suspect that "theory", both in chess and in other endeavors, can be likened to fairy tales. The lies we tell to children, because they help us to understand the world. These lies to children don't tell us the truth, but they help us put experience within a mental framework that might work pretty well sometimes, but not always. Subject to future correction.
#10

@kindaspongey said in #7:

I think that amateurs understandably try to make sense of what they read.
"... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position ... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn ­structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the com­batants should be included in the decision pro­cess as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be aban­doned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005)
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf
"... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
"... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. ... However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)
static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf
Georgios Souleidis (2011): "How would you characterise your style?"
GM Hikaru Nakamura: "Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space."
"... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ..." - Wilhelm Steinitz (1885)
"positional
A move, a maneuver or a style of play that is based on an exploitation of small advantages." - IM Jeremy Silman (1999)
is this wikipedia copy paste?

@kindaspongey said in #7: > I think that amateurs understandably try to make sense of what they read. > "... there is no ‘best’ choice in a (strategic) position ... It is not enough to evaluate material, initiative, pawn ­structure and other structural considerations generically – these considerations should be held up against the characteristics of the two players. The style and personality of the com­batants should be included in the decision pro­cess as well. This means that we should give up the assumption that in a given strategic position there is one best way to play which should be chosen by any player in the given position against any opponent sitting on the other side of the board. The assumption that chess is played on a board and against pieces should be aban­doned and replaced by an approach which acknowledges that chess is played between opponents and that the aim is to win the game against this particular opponent ..." - GM Lars Bo Hansen (2005) > http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Foundations_of_Chess_Strategy.pdf > "... Your choice of openings should be made in accordance with your own tastes and style of play. ..." - Mark Dvoretsky > "... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin > "... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. ... However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. ..." - Emanuel Lasker (~1925) > static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf > Georgios Souleidis (2011): "How would you characterise your style?" > GM Hikaru Nakamura: "Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space." > "... the most deep laid dazzling schemes can almost always be prevented by simple moves when the position is sound in general, ... in most respects the style of our time has become almost antagonistic to that of the Morphy period. ... The indiscriminate and chiefly tactical king's side attack has been superseded by strategical maneuvers, marches and counter marches for gaining and accumulating small advantages at any point of the board, and the calculations and combinations are made subservient to the delicate shades of difference in the application of position judgment ..." - Wilhelm Steinitz (1885) > "positional > A move, a maneuver or a style of play that is based on an exploitation of small advantages." - IM Jeremy Silman (1999) is this wikipedia copy paste?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.