How do you define Positional Play?

Sort:
ProfBlundermaster

I have posed this question to some of my OTB chess buddies in my city. I asked them to think about it and give me a good answer. Rather an answer I can understand. This term floats around in online videos and chess streams. It also comes up in some videos I have purchased. And it is there in the books I read. But I still can't seem to understand it, as I haven't come across a simple definition.

Here are some points:

  1. There is a lot of talk about Tactical Play vs Positional Play. Personally, I don't think one is better than the other, because good positions give birth to good tactics. You can't win with just knowing how to get a good position without cashing in on a good tactical attack. Neither can you give your opponent a good tactical blow if your position has a loose thread. So what is Positional Play exactly?
  2. In Artur Yusupov's book Build Up Your Chess-1 (the first book in his 9 volume series), which I'm currently studying, each chapter is based on some chess idea. Some are subtitled Tactics 1, 2, 3; some are Endgame 1, 2, 3; some are Strategy and so on. Now here are the chapters on Positional Play: The Value of the Pieces, and Realising a Material Advantage. Isn't that basic common sense? And also isn't that basic Strategy? So, what's the difference between Positional Play and Strategy?
  3. And lastly: How do you define Positional Play?

Yusupov's book contains tests. As of now, I have passed all the test I have attempted. One thing to note would be: I get really high scores on the chapters based on Tactics and Endgame, while I get passing grades on the chapters based on Positional Play. Does that mean I am a Tactical player? Or does that mean I just don't understand what Positional Play is?