As I become a more serious student of chess I am finding myself a little confused about a certain topic. I have heard some greats referred to as positional greats and tactical greats. What exactly does this mean? I understand for example that Marshall was a tactical and combinative great and Karpov is a postional giant...but what does this mean in terms of style? Sorry if this is a newb question I have only recently began taking things seriously and just wanted to clarify this for myself.

I think it means that the Marshalls and Tals of the world look to play sharp struggles and are keen to sacrifice to keep the initiative and the attack.

Players like Karpov are more clinical and run a tighter ship. They are less inclined to take risks and are happy to accumulate small long-term advantages like better pawn structure, a superior minor piece etc..

Of course Karpov would pounce on a tactical opportunity if it passed his way but he would much prefer a nagging edge as opposed to a double-sided game with chances for both sides in a messy position. He wouldn't go out of his way to stir up uncertainty.

Tactical: Like a leopard, quick swift kill, you often don't see it coming

Positional: Like a python, slowly consrticting, till you cant breathe.

Both kill you equally dead.

what he said

That makes a lot of sense so let's see if I get it...

Tactical players like to steer the games into uncertain positions and uncertain outcomes...IE sacrifice pieces for more open and option filled games...

Positional players like to slowly accumulate advantages and prefer to sit back and slowly choke their opponents with advantages they accumulate through more cautious and concise play.

Right?

Not that they specifically want uncertainty, just that they won't shy away from it to maintain the initiative.

But yes, I think you're got it down!

Tactical players prefer to steer the game into certain positions and certain outcomes (i.e. good for them) but will usually accept "uncertain positions and uncertain outcomes". The tools of the trade for tactical players are sacrifices, forcing move sequences and complicated combinations.

So PrawnEatsPrawn what does that mean for the positional player then? Sorry to bother just really wanting to hammer this into my brain.

maverick,

both padman's and rooperi's explanations are good, and you seem to understand them.

The difference essentially, is that the tactical player makes a lot of brute force plays and the positional player shows a softer hand, often playing "quiet moves" that later come back to haunt their opponents.

An analogy:

Tactical: plays the stock market

Positional: steadily saves up for later

Got it guys...thanks for your help...

Tactical players preffer to stteer the game into certain position and certain out come . Positional players have grat attitude ............ I wish that the hard work u have done will give u a lot in chess and want to see u grand master.

At higher levels, the difference is not so stark.  The "tactical" players like Topalov or Shirov are well grounded in positional play, and "positional" players like Kramnik or Karpov can unleash wild attacks.  Many players are well balanced - Anand, Aronian, Carlsen.

The tactical player steers for more complex play at every opportunity, while the positional player tends to enter complications only when the position favors his chances.  The best players can adapt their approach to the game in front of them.