Agressive chess VS. Positional chess

So I have been getting familiar with the two for a bit now....

Which is better? I really can't decide...

When playing Agressive, I noted that if you lose the initiative and the attack momentum,  you will probably lose the game (happens more often than not..)....it's like turning the whole thing into one big gambit, either it works out or not at all....

In the other hand.....playing positionally, your attacks are rather small (but safer, though...), your defence is usually better....you are simply better strategically.....but you are lacking in the attack potential...let alone it's more boring....basically it's a more "drawish" style....less risk and less rewards....

I personally have been mostly working in the positional style lately.....but now, finally reaching 1400, I think I should give it a thought.......I have always liked playing safely....but the results (in fun and victories) are not great....

So...what do you think is the best style for the higher rated players than 1400? Isn't pure aggression too risky? Or is it positional play, that is too passive? Or should I mix them? But then I am weaker in both sides...

In my opinion it's best to understand positional chess while looking forward to unleash your aggressive tactical play.

You must have pride in your tactics. 

For antichigurh : ...........................

For irked: thank you for your advice.......so you favour a mixture, then.....

Unless you can explain what positional and aggressive chess is, this post makes no sense.  This is the usual nonsense low rated players love to spew out. 

You need to understand the position to know what and how to play.  Labeling things and thinking that is how you play shows ignorance of the game.

Positional chess >

Try to play what the position needs you to play. Sometimes that's attacking, sometimes it's not.

But sure, as you improve, trying new things and ways of playing will help. If you do the same things over and over you'll get stuck.

Basically, but you MUST have command of tactics. That is always foremost. 

To keto : probably I should have explained more plainly...I was talking about openings!

When I use the london system (my favourite as white), I usually have a good position but with quite limited attack possibilities (ask any London player and he will tell you the same..)...this is called a "positional" opening that leads to a "positional" playing style (these terms were made by GMs (GM Ben finegold is an example), not me....)......

So, are you done mocking me? I personally believe that GM Ben finegold was not really talking ballshit while lecturing as st.louis chess club...

I think that the two terms "positional chess" and "Agressive chess" do explain themselves.....at least for people who know the game quite a bit...don't you think?

Positional chess is the playing style (yes, playing style! The playing style is defined by the opening...for example : london system is positional, while 1.e4 is Agressive....ask GM ben finegold and he may enlighten your ignorance a bit....) that, as I said in the first comment, is the style that favours defence over attack...while aggressive is the other way around....if you know chess well....you would know that openings dictate the game direction....the game style....

Got it.... lady? 

A mixture between the two is best, as suggested by many.....and I already know that now!

My point was that maybe dedication in one style can be more useful...like most things in life...working on many fields doesn't let you excel at any of them!......,

A lot of blabbering, but still nothing explained.  So again....

Unless you can explain what positional and aggressive chess is, this post makes no sense. This is the usual nonsense low rated players love to spew out.

You need to understand the position to know what and how to play. Labeling things and thinking that is how you play shows ignorance of the game.

Maybe someone else can explain for the lady? Anyone? She probably doesn't understand English,  but I will try again...

some openings, like the london, end up with player in a rather "defensive " position...with low attack opprtunites (means that preparing an attack in this position would be generally harder...)....but better defences (less weakness...to be accurate...)....this position, which limits your attack abilities...partially forces a way to play called "positional chess"...in which you hardly attack...but play "positionally"....that is to try, for example, get the best squares for your pieces.....

 Other openings, like 1.e4, end up with the player in rather "Agressive" position (the pure opposite to the previous...)...

This position, which gives you A LOT of attack potential, partially forces a way to played called "Agressive chess"...in which you attack with full force (this doesn't really need an example...does it?)....

As explained before and above....openings DEFINE the way to play......Aggressively or positionally....this whole post was made to ask which was is more effective...and with it the most effective type of openings will be acknowledged (though this part is on me)....and...that is it! Not really that hard!...but eh, what did I expect from a "blitz" player who is only good at calculation and trading everything of the board? That explains why you don't even know the term "positional"....you probably don't know anything about chess strategy too....I advice you to try and learn about it.....because you won't stand a chance without it in a rapid match!

First, it will depend on what you mean by "aggressive" and "positional".  Based on your followup, I suspect you mean playing sharper openings (e.g. Open Sicilian, gambits, etc.) vs less ambitious solid openings (e.g. London System, Colle, KIA, etc.).

The person with the initiative has the ability to make threats.  That does not mean that losing the initiative loses the game (unless you fail to realize you have lost the initiative and thus do not adjust your approach).

Tactics flow from the better position.  If you are playing wild attacks with 1-2 pieces immediately out of the opening, your problem is not "aggressive vs positional", but rather a lack of understanding what makes an attack work.  In short, no attack will ever succeed if your opponent does not make a mistake.  In order to induce a mistake, you must continue to improve your position.  Having a "strategically won" game will often force your opponent to make a tactical mistake (Note that at 1400, you are not going to have this problem very often!  Most of the time either you or your opponent will make a tactical mistake, and you will almost never see a 1400 take advantage of a strategic mistake).

You should be focusing on improving your tactical ability.  Understanding positional considerations is meaningless when you are down a piece.

There are 2 answers here:

1. If your name is not Alpha Zero, you do not have a style.  Rather, your style is "blundering".
2. Learn to play the position.  That is, look at what the position requires and play the best move you can find in that position.  If that is a sharp tactical sequence, go for it.  If that is improving your pieces and cutting out all your opponent's counterplay, do that.  Often, one of the other is clearly the way to go (the only time "style" comes into play is when you have a choice on which way to win).

Additionally, do not confuse "positional play" with "passive play".  Those are 2 completely separate things!

Seriously? my style is blundering? I don't remember hanging pieces aimlessly in my last games....I would call my mistakes "strategical mistakes"...you know...and please....don't make such a fuss about using simple terms like "style"...it's not really a big deal....

Then....again....let me rephrase my words....I am seeking the best way to play chess...and as you said...positions tell which way to play....and I know that ! I am not a 500 point rated dweeb who just learned chess last week!...I just wanted to adjust the nature of positions towards the best way...I can do that mostly be choosing openings that usually give these positions that, in turn, that tell me to play in which favourable way...attack (agressive) or hold your lines,brace yourself through the enemy's attack, then counterattack (positional)?

Passive play....you say that when you are not even higher than me by 200 full points...which is just fine for me....but you don't even have a rapid rating.....which tells me you are a typical Agressive blitz player....and then...of course you don't play passively!...but, however, I am sorry to tell that playing slowly, calmly, and positionally in classical rapid games...almost always has some passivity in it.....you should try it..

Tactics...thanks for the advice..I am already working on puzzles on another chess website (I am rated 1900 there, you can ignore my puzzle rating here, as I rarely train on puzzles here..)

Playing the position....again..thank you....I am sure i wouldn't have won any of my matches without already knowing that..again......I want to change positions for a certain "style".

I never went into attacks with 1 or 2 pieces only..don't worry....although I admit my attack skills are not really great...

Oh....... one thing for keto : lower rated players? HAHAHA!!🤣🤣🤣🤣 you saying that on the fact that your blitz rating is less than 60 points more than me? What a gap!!...give me 10 days and we can switch sides....eh, and I was a bit upset by pawntsunami's heavy talk when he is 200 points more (that's a big difference...)!

And again, people....."Agressive chess" and "positional chess" are not of my invention! These terms are already made by GMs...look in st.louis chess club for yourselves....

I am honestly not trying to argue with you on this.  Believe what you need to believe on this.  I only answered because it seems like every low rated player is into labels.  You further prove my point by judging my comments based on an online rating.  I took the time to go over some of your games, and based my opinion on your ability.  You even further proved my point my throwing a fit.  But....do what you think is best for you :-)

Your online rating speaks of your experience....being better by 60 points is nothing huge...and here is something about my games : some of them were played past midnight and were naturally lost ....while the others have some blunders in the endgame (I admit my inferiority in endgame skills....but I admit also that I was rushing because time was running short...)...while I remember some few beautiful matches of mine were I had no blunders, mistakes nor inaccuracies (yes! It happened!)...simply, don't judge me on some bad matches played in horrible timings....but rating, however, is there just to compare experiences and skills....

Yes.  And as I mentioned, unless your name is AlphaZero, that is always your "style".  The point is that you are focusing on the wrong things.

In a 30 minute game, with 26 minutes on your clock, you hung a bishop.  This was yesterday.

Like I suspected, you are asking about what types of openings you should play.  That is a completely separate question.  The way I would recommend picking your openings:

• Find players whose games you enjoy studying
• Play those openings

If you enjoy studying them, you are likely to do it.  Additionally, since you'll be studying those opening lines anyway, you might as well play them.  For example, if you like how Magnus handles the Sveshnikov, play it.  If you like how Fabi plays the Petroff, play that.  Trying to figure out your "style" is irrelevant.  Pick openings that you are likely to enjoy studying because you enjoy studying the players who play those openings.

I'm assuming you are referring to me here.  I do not play rapid online much for a very specific reason.

You run into these kinds of games quite often (the black player has an OTB rating of roughly 1700 - my OTB rating is similar).  In general, I play blitz while I'm doing other things or killing time (and I actually avoided playing blitz at all for over 3 years to correct a time management issue I had).  When I'm playing blitz, I have 3 objectives:

• Practice my openings
• Practice my tactical vision
• Avoid "performance enhancements"

I play a lot of 3+2 because it is harder for people to "get help" at the faster time controls.

I actually play OTB and you are completely incorrect.  Playing "passive" and playing "positionally" are not the same thing.  In fact, proper positional play will almost always focus on making your pieces as active as possible.  You may want to pick up "Positional Play" by Jacob Aagaard, or "Positional Decision Making" by Boris Gelfand.  It would help clear up some of that misconception.  Or, pick up "My Best Games of Chess" by Alekhine.

Like I said, you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Looking at several of your most recent games, your main issue (outside of hanging pieces) is playing on auto-pilot (which is a common problem with many people who pick up the London System at the class-level).

It's really dishonourable to flush away people like a 10 year old kid......"do what is best for you :-)"?....it's rude, you know...

I got only angry at treating me like a moron...when you are not by any means that much better than me....you were also disrespectful in your...well...all you comments...you use quite a bunch of offensive words...

My last comment was for keto...not you pawntsunami...

Since youre not comprehending anything i have posted.  I will make it easier for you. 

When i was active.  I was a USCF A player.  I have beaten Experts, NM's, and IM's OTB.  One more time.  I am not "bullying" you.  I and others are trying to show you how foolish you sound.

You play the best move you can find based on the position in front of you.  You do not play "aggressive" "tactical" "Positional" or "strategically"  You play based on the position.  And yes...your style is blundering.  Just like mine.