Should someone look for tactics before or after considering positional imbalances during a chess gam

KingdomSquares

Hey guys, I have been pondering this question for awhile now and was curious has to what you think regarding this question.

 

I understand that it often depends on the position. For example, during the opening, someone may not even consider tactical possibilities simply because they know they do not exist. But considering that both tactical and positional possibilities are present, do you look for tactics before or after noting positional imbalances in a chess game?

IMBacon

“Tactics flow from a superior position."

-Bobby Fischer.

How do you get a superior position?

Good Opening Principles.

Place your pieces on active squares.

Gain space - Good pawn structure.

Play good moves, have a plan, and the tactics will appear.


TS_theWoodiest

Tactics are a part of the position. Positional considerations, by their nature come at the end of calculations. The overall assessment of the position should come first because most of the clues that suggest decisive tactics exist will then be found.

 

(Not all tactical operations lead to an advantage, materially or otherwise. Some lead to even exchanges that end with an change in the players' position of some kind)

 

In general, I would say that positional considerations are judgement based and tactical considerations are based on the moves themselves.

 

Ex: 1.e4 this is an undefended pawn and already exposed to moves like 1...Nf6 (Alhekine's Defense) and 1...d5 (Scandinavian defense) both attacking the undefended pawn. I would consider that tactics.

 

Positionally 1.e4 is controlling key central squares and opening lines for the light square bishop and the queen (it also vacates the e2 square for the king :] LOL). Allowing quick development for the light square bishop also leads to quicker kingside castling, which means the king is safe and the king's rook can be brought out sooner.

 

Basically, they go hand in hand. Sometimes you allow tactical weaknesses that give positional pluses(like 1.e4 undefended but gives many benefits) and sometimes you take less while risking less and slowly improve without allowing any tactical weakness (like 1.d4). In either case both tactical and positional ideas are considered.

KingdomSquares

Thank you, great replies

robbie_1969
KingdomSquares wrote:

Hey guys, I have been pondering this question for awhile now and was curious has to what you think regarding this question.

 

I understand that it often depends on the position. For example, during the opening, someone may not even consider tactical possibilities simply because they know they do not exist. But considering that both tactical and positional possibilities are present, do you look for tactics before or after noting positional imbalances in a chess game?

tactics are decisive it only makes sense to look for tactics first.

robbie_1969
FishEyedFools wrote:

“Tactics flow from a superior position."

-Bobby Fischer.

How do you get a superior position?

Good Opening Principles.

Place your pieces on active squares.

Gain space - Good pawn structure.

Play good moves, have a plan, and the tactics will appear.

 

Fishy please contact me, I wanna speak to you about a matter.

IMBacon
robbie_1969 wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:

“Tactics flow from a superior position."

-Bobby Fischer.

How do you get a superior position?

Good Opening Principles.

Place your pieces on active squares.

Gain space - Good pawn structure.

Play good moves, have a plan, and the tactics will appear.

 

Fishy please contact me, I wanna speak to you about a matter.

I sent you a message...