Positional chess

Hi guys,I was wondering on how to play chess positionally.cause i seen many chess grandmasters like to play chess positionally but idk whats the meaning behind it.can someone explain it to me?

Positional moves are the quieter moves that improve the position as a whole, often quite subtly, and have no immediate obvious effect on the game, the cumulative gain shows up many moves later.

This contrasts with tactical moves, where there is a short, sharp battle with immediate effect.

Both are vital. I think from most of my reading "positional players" vs "tactical players" is a made up differentiation by newer players. Learn to find the best move and don't worry about what type of move it might be.

This is the opinion of a very bad player, so take it with a grain of salt.

Play the Queens Gambit with both sides - develop all your pieces in the most beautiful way - do not attack - there you played positionally

"The deepest sense of positional play is prophylaxis." - Aaron Nimzovich
It is about preventing play by your opponent, by occupying strong squares, by protecting your own pieces and pawns and squares, by trading well placed pieces of your opponent, by striving for a better pawn structure and exploiting weaknesses in your opponent's position.
I can only recommend "My System" by Aaron Nimzovich. It is available for free as its copyright has expired.

thanks for your opinion guys.other players please feel free to share your opinion with us.

So based on my understanding after reading your opinion ,a positional chess is just an artistic side of attacking which does not have an attack to the opposing king but rather conquering the board with the pieces.
(correct me if im wrong)

I have another question to ask:

does positional chess has many aspect such as attacking positional or other than that?
i just wanna know if such things exist .maybe i could change my style of playing (im an aggresive player actually(kinda).but i still wanna learn the positional way of playing.(i have another question but i feel shy to ask(ill ask when u guys answer this question first))

#5
"does positional chess has many aspect such as attacking positional or other than that?"
There is no clear cut division, there are only good moves and bad moves.
Generally an attack results from a superior position.
A good position cannot be attacked successfully.
Here is an example of a positional game
www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400

I've always understood that tactical considerations deal with immediately calculable consequences, whereas positional judgement relates to stuff that's outside the horizon of your ability to calculate. So if a knight move threatens two undefended major pieces and wins one of them then it's tactical, whereas if it attacks a couple of things that aren't immediately winnable but you think that having the opponent tied down to defending them is probably going to let you do other stuff in the long run then it's positional.

In terms of playing styles, "positional" practically seems to refer to playing for long term advantages that you can capitalize on in the endgame, whereas "tactical" refers to attacking and playing for checkmate or a decisive material advantage in the middlegame, but this distinction always seems a bit shonky to me - positional victories at a high level generally seem to involve a lot of tactical ideas being used to gain and exploit positional advantages, while great attacking players are generally making a whole bunch of positional decisions to get themselves into a position where some audacious sacrificial attack is actually a sound option.

so yeah there's basically has two different players(aggresive and positonal).im too tired to add comments
stay tuned for the next forum tommorow(continue to discuss about this tommorow)but another title.

damn my grammar is like drunk people when im tired(bruh).

thanks for the opinions gave by you guys