I'll hold back from grumbling about the actual play and opine that it's mostly positional with some tactical moments near the ends of both games.
P.S.--The reason: not many tactics are present, which is to be expected from a closed opening, even when the game gets going. Another way of saying this is that nobody has to calculate very much anywhere, only to rely on standard heuristics, which is positional knowledge.
I'll hold back from grumbling about the actual play and opine that it's mostly positional with some tactical moments near the ends of both games.
Sorry - did I play THAT badly? I know I made one or few mistakes that my opponents didn't notice - in the end of both games, but overall I didn't think I missed too many good moves. Or did I? Did they make blunders I didnt notice?
Thanks for the comment, by the way!
Hint: Where would the Black queen go after 10. Nh4 Qh6 11. Nb3?
Anyway, you need more than one opinion on the style classification.
Hint: Where would the Black queen go after 10. Nh4 Qh6 11. Nb3?
Anyway, you need more than one opinion on the style classification.
I swear to you that I tried to trap the queen but somehow I missed my black squared bishop attack. When I finally noticed, a couple moves later, the queen had opened space. Oh well.
Keep in mind it was a 1500 rated player that I was playing. First one in that range that opened the queen so soon in the opening, too. Guess I just expected it would find a path out somehow, since he wouldn't obviously blunder the queen in the start (a dangerous line of thought, I know).
In chess, a player's style is noticeable when the position gives then an option. For example maybe they have good middlegame chances with a kingside attack, and they also have good endgame chances with a knight vs bad bishop. Both options are good, and it's up to the player.
Weaker players have strengths and weaknesses. They do what they know how to do, and they don't do what they don't know how to do. You can't really have a style until you learn all the fundamentals, which for chess, like any complex skill, takes years (think art, music, sports).
---
Anyway, ok, but you want to know one way or another what people would call these, tactical or positional. I definitely see where Sqod is coming from, but IMO would call these games tactical because you tried to solve your problems tactically and didn't pursue positional pressure.
For example in the first game after 11...f5. Often the correct move is to capture en-passant, but with black's minor pieces so difficult to activate (the e7 knight has no squares, the c8 bishop almost has no squares) it was correct not to capture. A basic positional idea is to let black suffer with his lack of space. The normal positional plan, AFAIK, is to play this sort of position very VERY slowly. Improve your pieces while black struggles, and after maybe 10 moves go for a queenside break.
Your moves 13 + 14 solved all of black's positional problems. f4 locks up the side of the board where you have more space (usually you'd want to play on that side) and then 14.Qh5 allows black to trade off his embarrassingly bad knight. However 14.Qh5 is sort of a pin... I guess? I think that was sort of your intention. I call it both a positional blunder and a tactical try.
Then later moves 22 and 23 are very tactical, while basically none of the moves moves 17-21 make positional sense.
---
Second game
10.Nh2, ok, so you're going for f4, I call that positional.
11,Na3 is just a 1 move threat. Very tactical, also anti-positional (bad square for the knight).
Up to move 20 you build an attack, I call that positional, but then moves 21 and 22 lock up that side, and make a lot of your previous moves not make sense. This is just lack of experience I think, being afraid to open the kingside because your king is on g1... but actually you're the boss fo the kingside (you have space and pieces ready to use it). White actually wants to open kingside files with a move like 21.g5 (which the engine also suggests).
Then the game ends on black's move 22 so it's hard to comment on the rest, but for example 32.b4 I would call tactical. It's a forcing move. I don't like it positionally though because you're opening lines before your pieces are organized. It doesn't really matter because you're completely winning after move 22, but for example since you're ahead just trade down 32.Bxa5 33.Bxc6 then put the knights on c4 and e4, king on e2, rooks on the queenside, and then go for a pawn break.
---
So for game 2 I'll actually call it a tie because the main feature was your building up that kingside attack / pressure (even if you bailed out at the very end of it).
Actually, all the anti-positional stuff I'd just call a lack of experience which goes back to my first point: you don't really have a style yet, just things you know, and things you don't know.
I'll just post a video by IM Lilov:
https://youtu.be/dr0t_2nqwE0?t=42s
The terms are used willy nilly and it's hard to get a grip on them. I think you just have attacking players like Kasparov that want to go after your king and positional(?) players like Karpov that would rather slowly improve their position and then try to make yours worse slowly. I suppose there are a lot of people in the middle.
I won't comment because of your use of that horrible 3D board. I find it really hard to see the pieces. What's wrong with the lovely 2D board as in Sqod's post?
In chess, a player's style is noticeable when the position gives then an option. For example maybe they have good middlegame chances with a kingside attack, and they also have good endgame chances with a knight vs bad bishop. Both options are good, and it's up to the player.
Weaker players have strengths and weaknesses. They do what they know how to do, and they don't do what they don't know how to do. You can't really have a style until you learn all the fundamentals, which for chess, like any complex skill, takes years (think art, music, sports).
---
Anyway, ok, but you want to know one way or another what people would call these, tactical or positional. I definitely see where Sqod is coming from, but IMO would call these games tactical because you tried to solve your problems tactically and didn't pursue positional pressure.
For example in the first game after 11...f5. Often the correct move is to capture en-passant, but with black's minor pieces so difficult to activate (the e7 knight has no squares, the c8 bishop almost has no squares) it was correct not to capture. A basic positional idea is to let black suffer with his lack of space. The normal positional plan, AFAIK, is to play this sort of position very VERY slowly. Improve your pieces while black struggles, and after maybe 10 moves go for a queenside break.
Your moves 13 + 14 solved all of black's positional problems. f4 locks up the side of the board where you have more space (usually you'd want to play on that side) and then 14.Qh5 allows black to trade off his embarrassingly bad knight. However 14.Qh5 is sort of a pin... I guess? I think that was sort of your intention. I call it both a positional blunder and a tactical try.
Then later moves 22 and 23 are very tactical, while basically none of the moves moves 17-21 make positional sense.
---
Second game
10.Nh2, ok, so you're going for f4, I call that positional.
11,Na3 is just a 1 move threat. Very tactical, also anti-positional (bad square for the knight).
Up to move 20 you build an attack, I call that positional, but then moves 21 and 22 lock up that side, and make a lot of your previous moves not make sense. This is just lack of experience I think, being afraid to open the kingside because your king is on g1... but actually you're the boss fo the kingside (you have space and pieces ready to use it). White actually wants to open kingside files with a move like 21.g5 (which the engine also suggests).
Then the game ends on black's move 22 so it's hard to comment on the rest, but for example 32.b4 I would call tactical. It's a forcing move. I don't like it positionally though because you're opening lines before your pieces are organized. It doesn't really matter because you're completely winning after move 22, but for example since you're ahead just trade down 32.Bxa5 33.Bxc6 then put the knights on c4 and e4, king on e2, rooks on the queenside, and then go for a pawn break.
---
So for game 2 I'll actually call it a tie because the main feature was your building up that kingside attack / pressure (even if you bailed out at the very end of it).
Actually, all the anti-positional stuff I'd just call a lack of experience which goes back to my first point: you don't really have a style yet, just things you know, and things you don't know.
This was a GREAT analysis! I'm in awe, truthfully.
I do love fischer's sacrificing mates and tactical moves, but I also love closed positions, which the pieces usually have to be positioned very neatly, since sometimes it's very cramped.
About game 1: I didnt REALLY want to pin that queen, I wanted to exchange the knights and position my queen very close to his kingside, and later bring my light-squared bishop and some pawns to do some damage. I obviously wouldn't take en passant, since it would open his rook file, and that's DEFINITELY too risky for me (I like to diminish their threatening options as much as I can).
_______
2. OK, game 2 I chickened out. My plan WAS truly to open the kingside path, but I NEVER HAD PLAYED someone who walked with his king from the kingside to the center and then bring the queen AND the rook to the kingside before I could open it. So yea, I was scared. Hella scared. I felt it would be better to make ALL those moves by him to be wasted by simply closing the position. Remember, I was a pawn ahead (that he blundered for some reason earlier), and that made his pawn structure on the queenside weaker than mine. Plus, his queen and his rook are on the other side of the board and the king is cramped in the middle. I thought since I had a very big space advantage, my pieces could easily move to the queenside to attack. Isnt this a positional way of thinking, or just plain logic?
______
Anyhow, thanks a lot for all the information! I wonder if the experience you mention is only possible through play. I don't think any books will actually teach what to do exactly in these positions. I think myself as a balanced player that doesnt like to struggle for center control but is aggressive on the kingside and I love to try to find tactical mates (like on game 1). Perhaps we all are like that? I don't like open positions, that's for sure.
I won't comment because of your use of that horrible 3D board. I find it really hard to see the pieces. What's wrong with the lovely 2D board as in Sqod's post?
hahah. I actually only play on the internet since there was this option. I hate 2D. 10 years ago, when I used to play, I would never play in the internet since I loved the actual physical, solid pieces. It made my spatial thinking better and I found it more beautiful than 2D stuff. It felt like armies were in the move! Surely you can understand.
Open lines typically favor one player or the other. If you have more space on that side, (and your pieces aren't disorganized or far away) then usually it will favor you. Taking en passant would normally be the way to preserve any play you have so it's an important move to be aware of in similar positions. I don't know if this is good, but for example after move 12 en-passant imagine you follow up with a move like 13.Be3. Now your Be3 and Bg2 work together to protect f1-f4 and because they're minor pieces, black can't pressure you with rooks and queens on the f file for example... because any capture from a rook or queen can be recaptured by one of your bishops. So you're completely defended. So you really only look to see if black's minor pieces can add pressure to those squares... and in that position all of black's pieces are blocked out of that area, so you're really very safe.
_______
2. OK, game 2 I chickened out. My plan WAS truly to open the kingside path, but I NEVER HAD PLAYED someone who walked with his king from the kingside to the center and then bring the queen AND the rook to the kingside before I could open it. So yea, I was scared. Hella scared. I felt it would be better to make ALL those moves by him to be wasted by simply closing the position. Remember, I was a pawn ahead (that he blundered for some reason earlier), and that made his pawn structure on the queenside weaker than mine. Plus, his queen and his rook are on the other side of the board and the king is cramped in the middle. I thought since I had a very big space advantage, my pieces could easily move to the queenside to attack. Isnt this a positional way of thinking, or just plain logic?
That's a good plan. I forgot you were a pawn ahead. Low risk high reward, good way to look at it.
______
Anyhow, thanks a lot for all the information! I wonder if the experience you mention is only possible through play. I don't think any books will actually teach what to do exactly in these positions.
A little of both. What you learn in books enhances what you can learn from experience, and what you learn from experience enhances what you can learn from books. You're right there's no book that says what to do in that exact position, but they give ideas that apply to types of positions... like attacking where you have more space, that's a basic idea that can be used in most positions.
I think myself as a balanced player that doesnt like to struggle for center control but is aggressive on the kingside and I love to try to find tactical mates (like on game 1). Perhaps we all are like that? I don't like open positions, that's for sure.
When I was new I would sometimes lose to people sacrificing pieces near my king then checkmating me. As a beginner, I decided they were lucky, and decided I didn't want to win that way. So for a long time I ignored attacking ideas and I tried to win other ways (tactics, endgames, positional play). As a consequence, today I'm better at those things than I am at attacking even though now I can appreciate a sacrificial mate attack. So no, I don't prefer attacking the king, but I'm probably strange that way 
Open lines typically favor one player or the other. If you have more space on that side, (and your pieces aren't disorganized or far away) then usually it will favor you. Taking en passant would normally be the way to preserve any play you have so it's an important move to be aware of in similar positions. I don't know if this is good, but for example after move 12 en-passant imagine you follow up with a move like 13.Be3. Now your Be3 and Bg2 work together to protect f1-f4 and because they're minor pieces, black can't pressure you with rooks and queens on the f file for example... because any capture from a rook or queen can be recaptured by one of your bishops. So you're completely defended. So you really only look to see if black's minor pieces can add pressure to those squares... and in that position all of black's pieces are blocked out of that area, so you're really very safe.
_______
2. OK, game 2 I chickened out. My plan WAS truly to open the kingside path, but I NEVER HAD PLAYED someone who walked with his king from the kingside to the center and then bring the queen AND the rook to the kingside before I could open it. So yea, I was scared. Hella scared. I felt it would be better to make ALL those moves by him to be wasted by simply closing the position. Remember, I was a pawn ahead (that he blundered for some reason earlier), and that made his pawn structure on the queenside weaker than mine. Plus, his queen and his rook are on the other side of the board and the king is cramped in the middle. I thought since I had a very big space advantage, my pieces could easily move to the queenside to attack. Isnt this a positional way of thinking, or just plain logic?
That's a good plan. I forgot you were a pawn ahead. Low risk high reward, good way to look at it.
______
Anyhow, thanks a lot for all the information! I wonder if the experience you mention is only possible through play. I don't think any books will actually teach what to do exactly in these positions.
A little of both. What you learn in books enhances what you can learn from experience, and what you learn from experience enhances what you can learn from books. You're right there's no book that says what to do in that exact position, but they give ideas that apply to types of positions... like attacking where you have more space, that's a basic idea that can be used in most positions.
I think myself as a balanced player that doesnt like to struggle for center control but is aggressive on the kingside and I love to try to find tactical mates (like on game 1). Perhaps we all are like that? I don't like open positions, that's for sure.
When I was new I would sometimes lose to people sacrificing pieces near my king then checkmating me. As a beginner, I decided they were lucky, and decided I didn't want to win that way. So for a long time I ignored attacking ideas and I tried to win other ways (tactics, endgames, positional play). As a consequence, today I'm better at those things than I am at attacking even though now I can appreciate a sacrificial mate attack. So no, I don't prefer attacking the king, but I'm probably strange that way
haha, I see. Maybe I'm a bit more tactical than positional, then. Or maybe I just, like you guys have said, have things I know and things I don't (whatever that means, haha)
Look at this game I played. Wouldn't you call this VERY positional? I slowly creep over my opponent, gaining board advantage and suffocating his position:
You won a pawn on move 9, so from there you have a lot of options. You chose to gain a lot of space, so sure, that's positional.
You won a pawn on move 9, so from there you have a lot of options. You chose to gain a lot of space, so sure, that's positional.
Now look here and tell me what do you think of this game. I believe this screams "positional", heh.
Don't mistake me but the 2 games were full of blunders.from my analysis I can conclude that you are tactical though you need to work on tactics.
You won a pawn on move 9, so from there you have a lot of options. You chose to gain a lot of space, so sure, that's positional.
Now look here and tell me what do you think of this game. I believe this screams "positional", heh.
Space is a static feature, and a positional element, but gaining a lot of space without development is anti-positional in the sense that it's hurting your position.
The way a new player might sacrifice a lot of pieces in front of the enemy king might call themselves tactical when in reality they hurt their position in hopes that something works out in the end.
The game you show was probably a lot of fun, and I can see why you might want to try the same thing every game, but if you ever get tired of it, or if you want to keep improving over a long period of time, I suggest learning other ways of playing too.
Chess is 100% tactics. Without being positional your tactics never work
Chess is 100% tactics. Without being positional your tactics never work
Hi Yuri!
Don't mistake me but the 2 games were full of blunders.from my analysis I can conclude that you are tactical though you need to work on tactics.
Not exactly "blunders", I believe you mean innacuracies? Blunders occur when you hang a piece or lose a piece in a tactic. In this game, there were no "blunders" in most moves, since I didn't win any pieces over my opponent at all, just better positioning. Of course, there were moments that he could have opened the position and it would have allowed him more space and a way more stronger game, but those are not called blunders, as far as I know, just innacuracies. There were a couple mistakes in the end that allowed me mate, but again, no "blunders", he did not left pieces to hang at any time.
Don't mistake me but the 2 games were full of blunders.from my analysis I can conclude that you are tactical though you need to work on tactics.
Not exactly "blunders", I believe you mean innacuracies? Blunders occur when you hang a piece or lose a piece in a tactic. In this game, there were no "blunders" in most moves, since I didn't win any pieces over my opponent at all, just better positioning. Of course, there were moments that he could have opened the position and it would have allowed him more space and a way more stronger game, but those are not called blunders, as far as I know, just innacuracies. There were a couple mistakes in the end that allowed me mate, but again, no "blunders", he did not left pieces to hang at any time.
Ok so first off, blunders essentially mean handing over an advantage with no hopes of compensation (these can also be missed opportunities, positional errors, as well as hanging pieces). Now then, you play with a more tactical approach in the middle game, which I found odd given the highly positional KIA that you choose to employ. A positional idea is set yourself up for clean tactics and a winning endgame. Tactical players tend to calculate a few moves for a good way to snag material or threaten pieces, forcing their opponent to make bad moves. You tend to do the latter, but your opening sets up a good position for you (possibly even by accident). Honestly though, I think you would be better off if you were to expand your opening repertoire to include some aggressive and sharp openings. It would also give you a better idea of why a position is good or not and how to improve it.
Please, humour me. I'm not sure if I understand exactly what consists of a Tactical or Positional play, as most often those two types of play are combined in all chess games. I have read an article that said only GM's could be classified as one or other kind.
However, let's just pretend for a moment here that Im an incognito master somehow. These games, do they appear tactical or positional to you? And why? Lately I've been playing games that often result on closed options. I feel confortable in these positions, and I believe I play more strongly in them.
So, here are 2 of my last games (I'm kinda new to the forum, so I'm not sure how to post annotations in your game, so if anyone has any hint, I'd appreciate):