So after hitting 2000 fide, I began exploring the great books of Jacob Aagaard.
I came across two interesting books for him: Strategic Play and Positional Play.
But... Aren't Strategic play and Positional play just the same thing?!
They both focus on weaknesses, place of pieces, prophylaxis, pawn structures, etc...
So is there a difference?
Strategic play is attacking and defending correctly. Positional play is fighting for a good position.
What?! no.
you always fight for a good position.
Yes, so you combine both!😁
Maybe Positional play is part of Startegical Play , Either this or they are the same.
@MrCrusher finally a cool topic to discuss. Thank you.
Do you mean Tactical vs. Positional , or Strategic vs Positional , because I always (well always if always means the last two years... heh I'm a riot ) thought Positional play WAS strategic play.
I'm not making fun. This topic has always challenged me. Look at my profile. Thanks for posting.
@killF7, you live in Rainbow aswell? Because president told me to spread the word about the thing... you know... the thing has happened. It's came. Calera was right.
There are exactly 2 aspects to chess:
1. EVERYTHING that ALL pieces influence where they sit. (CHESS FUNDAMENTALS)
2. EVERYTHING that changes once a piece moves. (CHESS TACTICS)
We put our pieces on the best squares, hopefully with the most efficient and productive potential/influence, so that there will be the greatest chance for viable tactics that are logistically justified in the next 1-3-5-10-20 moves.
To answer your question, yes, they ultimately bleed one into the other.
Someone judging "BxN" to be the best move in the position, for example, is technically considering a tactic; however, it's sole purpose was to leave favourable fundamentals in the position.
Or say, for example, that you have one 'now-or-never' opportunity to close a diagonal that would allow your opposition a long-term outpost if not addressed.
Technically, moving a pawn to close that diagonal doesn't take a piece or even attack anything, but it is kinetic and should be counted as a "tactic", even though, ultimately, it's purpose was fundamental.
Alternately, QxQ could be a move in a certain position. Technically, QxQ would leave the opposition without a Q to attack critical diagonals where the K on g2 will now be safe with holes on the white squares f3/g2, where without a white B and no Q, that a8-h1 diagonal is now moot and safe. In this case, QxQ served a fundamental purpose, but it was a tactical move.
So after 20 years of thinking about this matter, I've come to the conclusion that it is a little bit fallacious to consider moves themselves as being either "positional/tactical" or "strategic/tactical"
It needn't be this uselessly complex when it's much simpler than all that.
The most proficient and comprehensive way to assess and pay attention to this matter is very simple:
1. EVERYTHING that ALL pieces influence where they sit. (CHESS FUNDAMENTALS)
2. EVERYTHING that changes once a piece moves. (CHESS TACTICS)
Every single position of every single game has both of these aspects taking place at all times.
Consider them both on every turn, and you'll be maximizing the ideas behind "positional/fundamental vs. strategic/tactical".
Ultimately, it's a simple side-note that is of little or no value.
One could become a titled GM and still have absolutely no use for understanding the distinction between the two.
Maybe by positional he meant as opposed to tactical or sharp play. By strategic he meant how you can use different strategies in your play. You can't be sure unless you read the book.
@Onyx_Chess Simple but deep. I liked your comment, thanks.
