19405 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Said another way, at what rating would studying positional chess increase one's rating? 1200? Lower? Higher?
What about someone new to chess? After knowing the rules of play, should it be part of the first lessons with a chess teacher?
Who needs to study positional chess anyway? Chess is 99% tactics. Right? 😜
it all depends on how good you are, so if you study and get better than you get more points. hope this helps
Everyone who wants to play well should study it,
A solid positional player builds up very,very slowly gains more and more small advantages and space on the board he or she likes to squeeze and crush their opponent to death like a large python if you study the games of Karpov and Samuel Reshevesky you'll see this style of play is very,very affective they don't need flashy tactics to win.
Positional Players are very patient they wait for their opponents to fall on top of their swords and die a miserable death when they launch brash and wild counterattacks.
I got to 1547 USCF with just good old fashioned, caveman style chess but after that I hit a bit of a wall. And started sinking back down to the mid-1400's. A few months ago I really got serious about studying more about positional chess and stratagy. And now my rating is going back above the 1500's and climbing. So I suppose a good time to start working on positional chess is in the late 1400's to early 1500's.
However, if you get a chess teacher then my advice is to just study whatever they tell you to because they usually know what they're doing.
It may not increase your rating right away, but it's always useful to work on foundational knowledge. Even a beginner will find it useful to know about things like doubled pawns, development and king safety.
Of course just knowing about this stuff doesn't make you immune to the mistakes. All the time you can find games of otherwise decent class players giving their opponent an attack on their king, falling behind in development, ignoring the center, having passive pieces etc.
If you can keep playing reasonable moves in between tactics then your opportunity for tactics will greatly increase.
I think positional chess is rather harmful at low(our) level.people should play muzio gambit and not mmic kramnik's slav games in online chess upto 20 moves.It's because we learn most from our faults and opponents fault and the most important part you will miss fun of attack and right defence.
People who miss a mate in 4 should never go to study abstruct concept like centraliztion .
It will improve your ability at all levels.
Tactical oppurtunities are the result of good positional play
The only problem will be if you make 'good positional moves' which fail tactically.
How can you create tactical opportunities without "positional" chess? Tactics spring from good positions.
Positional chess mainly concerns the enduring aspect of chess positions, the pawn structures - and most importantly the central pawn structures - and the tactics which arise from them and the strategies which proceed from them. It's not a question of when in your progress you begin to learn it. Until you begin to learn it, you will make little progress.
Tactics are important for new and improving players, especially the simple tactics, because they lose most games to them. But to think you can learn tactics without positional play is to believe you could learn to play piano with the left hand first, and only later the right.
i think these distinctions between positional and tactical are illusory.
It's useful at any level.
who is better at chess smeagol from lord of the rings or dobbie from harry poter
by IronedSandwich 4 minutes ago
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
by titust 5 minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by Eyechess 5 minutes ago
by oreochess91 5 minutes ago
by Assasinmate 6 minutes ago
Gary Kasparov Arrested
by plutonia 6 minutes ago
Get stuck when all pieces are developed/
by JackOfAllHobbies 8 minutes ago
For sale - Paul Morphy's chess set
by plutonia 9 minutes ago
Chess should be free as the air we breath
by plutonia 11 minutes ago
by Litwitlou 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!