I would like to start a debate about which positions are better: open or closed. So feel free to post your comments about which are better, and why do you like that kinds of positions? ( and if you feel any advanteges on playing that way, that kinds of positions).

Sincerely: Percyval

I prefer closed positions. I play a lot of quick, one minute, games here on Live Chess, and I have a 1500+ rating in it. The reason I do pretty well at them is I that I strive for closed positions. Albeit, most of my wins are gained on time instead of by checkmate, most quick players don't realize that, in a closed game, speed counts more than accurate moves.

I've been trying to specialize in the Bird Opening (1. f4) and I believe I've gotten pretty good with it. I try to do the "Real" Bird instead of, for example, the Polar Bear Bird version. The Real Bird consists of 1. f4, 2. Nf3 and fianchettoing (sp) on both sides right away, not just the king side. Doing this often leads to pretty good play on the flanks, which is what is needed in closed games.

It can only be a preference, choosing which we would like to be in, a closed or open position. I've never heard any GM distill how one is actually better than the other.

For little ole me, I don't mind either and my opening systems permit both. My issue is flat out, wild positions with tactics and variations sprouting all over the place. My normal method is to begin calculating and continue, next move rinse and repeat. For Reshevsky this was normal, and he was like a plugged-in adding machine just knocking down the variations, but for me it's far slower and more unsure. The result is an imperfect analysis (often) and one tired player (me) after analyzing this way for an hour or two or three. Figure in more rounds to follow--I am talking otb here--and I really do get tired if I have lots of such positions before me. So, open positions: I like 'em fine but the way I handle some of them makes them an impractical choice for me.

Closed Positions: I am comfortable with them. I find that many of my equal-strength opponents have better ideas than me in them though. I tend to gain back some ground by analyzing more than they do and finding little errors they have overlooked.

I envy the quick and intuitive players who see in a glance what I struggle for, and who can keep up tactically as well. The "always a bigger fish" axiom I guess. I was good for High School but now the pond seems big to me.

I think that for those that like to take the time to deeply analyze a position (only possible in online or postal chess), a closed game is easier to assess because it tends to have fewer options. I have to admit I enjoy both open and closed positions just for the variety they present.  Open games tend to have more fireworks and tactical combinations, while closed games unfold slowly and artfully.

Looking at the games rather than what people say, I see that closed positions are the order of the day. Yet many people love the excitement of the dramatic open positions. I conclude that the open positions are harder to handle. What this implies about chess players I couldn't say...

Closed.

I prefer a maneuvering type game.