I've heard that the positional greats - e.g. Rubinstein, Capa and Karpov - were noted for their exceptionally skillful handling of "simple positions", but I can't find a reference on what exactly constitutes a "simple position"?

Is it only a position where simplifications have occurred? Or would, for instance, the rather undynamic and symmetric positions resulting from 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 (the main line Petroff) qualify? Or what?

Anyone?

A simple position can be defined in many different ways.  These are what I believe constitute a simple position in different ways:

A resignable position, or one where the game is already resolved.

A position with few pieces on the board.

A position with no tension and very few tactical opportunities.  these positions are usually closed.

A position where there are no threats or captures for either side.

A position that is clearly drawn.

A position with no imbalances, (basically, a position that is so equal there is no play in it)

A position that makes both players confused as to how to progress as there is nothing on the board that needs to be attended to.

 

This is my interpretation of a simple position, hope it helps!

I wouldn't classify the main line Petroff as a "simple position".

It is usually an open game where both sides have the same pawn structure and piece distributon and there are no tactical threats anywhere.

In the days of Rubenstein, Capa etc a "simple position" is a reference to greatly reduced material, ie endgames.  Simple doesn't mean lack of complications or complexity, just reduction in pieces. 

lol @ eainca