Difference between positional and tactical chess

Hi

It might be a simple query but can anybody explain in plain and lay terms what's the difference between positional and tactical play?  Also what do dynamic play, static play, calculative play mean? 

Is it important for someone who's playing chess to foresee next dozen or so moves while playing?  what is the easy way to implement this?

The following is from Euwe's introduction to his book on the middlegame:

>>>There are various ways of setting about the classification of the middle game.  The most obvious is a system based on  peculiarities of the position, such as pieces left on the board, characteristic pawn formations, ect.  One takes the actual state of affairs on the board as foundation; but since the sate is changing with every move it is necessary that the peculiarities on the classification rest should be chosen for some more or less lasting properties.  Such peculiarities are known in chess terminology as positional features, and these features will form our first line of approach in classifying the middle game.

Besides this system, which depends on the state of the board as seen at a glance, and which one might call the static system, there is a second system based on what happens on the board, and this can be called the dynamic system.  For instance, whenever we group all positions together which an attack on the King could be carried out we are working from the dynamic standpoint.<<<

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-styles

Time for another Euwe quote, "Tactics is seeing, Strategy is thinking".

Most tactics are based on some type of double threat.  For instance if you can move your knight so that it attacks two pieces this is called a fork.  Another tactic is the pin.  for instance if your knight is on c6 and your king on e7 and there is nothing d7, then your opponent by playing his bishop to b5 pins the knight making it immobile.  If your opponent could then attack the knight with a pawn on d5, he could win it.  Tactics are the result of geometric patterns which occur again and again.  After you have played awhile, you will recognize these patterns without thinking.  Strategy is long range planning which you need to think about.

A tip about use of your clock from Kotov:  Think about strategy when its your opponent's move and his clock is running.  Look for tactics when it's your turn to move.

Postional play consists of trying to gain some of these 4 things, the more of these 4 things you are winning compared to your opponent the more likely you will win.

1) A better pawn structure

2) Your king is more safe

3) Your pieces cover more squares

4) Your pieces are more developed

Strategic play is the the thinking aspect of planning a change. Tactics are the muscle behind the strategy.

Strategy is the wisdom, Tactics is the power

As for "dynamic and static" are can be more easily explained as "attack and defense" attacking is good defending is bad, so you want the more dynamic position instead of the more static position most of the time.

Calculitive play is pretty self explanitory basically thinking " if then if then if then"

It's always important to see tactics, know they are there because those kinds of forced moves, by far, have the most volatile outcomes. To miss a tactical opportunity from the opponent leaves a big opening in your position and leaves you praying you don't lose something. If you always see those opportunities and never miss them, it's very hard for you to lose, because the worst that could happen is that you miss a positional subtlety, which, though not useless, is remarkably insignificant compared to the potential venom in tactical moves. I'm always tempted to play positional chess myself, because it's simply what I like, but objectively it's much better to make sure you see every tactic at all costs.

It's also easy to judge a position without looking at tactical possibilities, and it's a big mistake. One side may have more space or something, but if there is some tactic that forces him to get rid of it, the whole position is transformed right away. Potential tactics is also what's used to determine the value of some dynamic advantage, like if a lead in development is enough: you need to consider the possible tactics you can create, and see if the opponent can unravel or catch up in development, which is also often based on tactics. For example, the opponent may not be able to develop a certain piece because of a concrete tactical idea, that, the piece being "developed" would then allow, which in turn gives the guy with development a big positional advantage too in that the other guy has trouble catching up.

So, as has been said, tactics form the foundation of everything you do, and they must always be considered first.

The difference between more dynamic GMs and more solid ones is just that the dynamic ones are more eager to create as many complications from the start; more willing to make concessions for dynamic compensation, even if that compensation will be unclear for many moves to come. The solid ones will often prefer the less complicated lines, BUT, they will always be on the lookout for any dynamic way of achieving things, it's just that people like Karpov for example will want those dynamic lines to lead to a more clear result, while others may enjoy positions that neither side can evaluate perfectly until many more moves are played and instead rely on their instinct to see if they trust in some unclear move. But again, both styles need tactics.

Honestly, I think the very best training for myself right now is to keep improving my tactics and try to do a few more thousand puzzles; it's a little repetitive, but I want to be able to see all tactics very very quick which will make me much more alert and efficient.

 This is simply not correct at all.

In positional play a player makes use of the aspects of the game that make the relative values of pieces relative.  That is, things like space, pawn structure, king safety, activity, or complexes of squares are able to make some knights better than other knights, some rooks more valuable than other rooks and so on.  Generally speaking you can think of this kind of play as long term, long range thinking that doesn't require concrete calculation to back it up in the way tactics do (see below).

In tactical play, a player definitely still has these things in mind, but the sequence of moves takes on a more forcing nature.  This means the opponent has a very limited number of responses (and many times only 1 response).  In this way tactics are seen as more of a short range solution to a position and are because of their forcing nature are backed up through calculation.

As said many times through this thread, both types are inseparable parts of the same whole which is chess play.  Players (at least good ones) never use one type in isolation.  Correct tactics always need to lead to positionally sound positions and positional play always requires a tactical check to see if it will work against any combinations.

Dynamic play involves basing your play off of advantages that are comparatively fleeting.  What I mean is, if you don't pursue a dynamic advantage, it will disappear.  Things like initiative and development require fast action, a few lazy moves and the opponent's position will catch up where it was lacking.

Static play is based off of longer lasting advantages.  These advantages aren't going anywhere, a good example is pawn structure.  Pawns move so slowly, and are often locked facing each other, they set up nearly permanent features in a game.  Plans based off of static features can take their time to slowly build and execute.

Calculative play is a bit of a misnomer for dynamic play.  As the name suggests it means the player is basing his moves off of lots of calculation.  Calculation can only be used to solve positions with forcing variations and forcing variations only occur in positions with some kind of dynamic advantage.

Very rarely.  Chess is too complex to be played well with calculation alone.  Computers that calculated millions of moves per second were still losing to humans until their evaluations were able to get better.

While clear calculation is important for every player, what really counts in chess is understanding the position and the evaluation of a position that comes after calculation.

Barring some natural talent, there is no easy way to gain a lot of skill in something.  If you want to be good at calculation you have to practice it a lot.  When playing over a game or going through a book, visualize as many moves as you can from the diagram before you use a board.  At first you may only be able to see 1 or 2 moves but the more you practice the better you'll be. 

The other way is to solve tactical puzzles and spend at least 15 minutes on each (or until you solve it), up to 30 minutes total.  This has the added benefit of exercising you tactical ability, but in these long solves you're practicing a lot of visualization and how to calculate cleanly one variation, render a verdict, and move on to another variation. 

In this exercise visualize 1 move only, hold that position in your head, and slowly and carefully find the next move.  When you do, visualize that one extra move, clearly see the new position, and find the next move.  If you can increase your ability to visualize a new position and work from that imaginary position instead of from the board in front of you, the length of what you're able to calculate is greatly extended.

Interesting, I'd never heard it put this way.  I guess I imagined everyone was like me, and started with general principles to form an evaluation and only after worked on the details.

Would you have to be mindful of this as a teacher?  I would push someone to think a little bit about the position before they start pointing out candidate moves.  Maybe some people need to run though a few lines before they start to see a bigger picture?

Or in proper internet terms:

Positional - "I'm chargin' mah lazer!!"

Tactical - "I'm firin' mah lazer!!"

Interesting.

If my memory is correct (and it often isn't these days), Tal was talking about an end game he and Botvinnik had played in their first championship game.  Tal couldn't believe how Botvinnik evaluated the position by general observations.  I think that the endgame distinction is important, because Tal certainly would rely on intuition in evaluating a middlegame move.

Thank you all.  Many things look greek and latin.  So much food for pondering.

Your example of a pin is faulty as the K needs to be on e8 and not e7. 

Kotov's advice is interesting and I follow it in my games, sorta. When my opponents clock is running I not only assess the position in a strategical way but I also pretend as if I am playing my opponent's side and look for the best moves I can find for the opponent. This very often helps me to avoid traps and tactics that are winning for my opponent and also helps me to spend less time on my responses if he does make the moves that I have "found" for him.  When my clock is running I do indeed look more for tactics than anything else.  The problem with doing this is that it turns you into a "sitter" and you have almost no time to get up and walk around during the game.  

Some years ago, Korchnoi came to town to play in an international tournament.  During the game, he would just sit there hour after hour concentrating on the board regardless of whose turn it was.  Most of the Canadian players would get up, and wander all around the hall when it wasn't their turn.  Korchnoi, of course, won the tournament, and we wondered if one of the reasons might be that he focused on the games a lot more.

" The tactician knows what to do when there is something to do ; The strategist knows what to do when there is NOTHING to do !! forgot the old school master who quoted this : But man was he right, i am a heavy tactics kind of player but i have found it is far more difficult to find the CORRECT plan in any given position than it is to execute a tactical motiff. This is a very informative Thread !!

In Play Like A Grandmaster, Alexander Kotov writes: "There are two main types of position, and resulting from that, two different kinds of struggle.  In the one case, we get a constant clash of pieces mixing it in tricky patterns, with tactical blows, traps, sometimes unexpected and shattering moves.  In the other case, ... [t]he respective armies stand at a distance from each other, the battles are restricted to reconnaisance and minor sorties into the enemy position.  The thrust of the attacking side is prepared slowly with the aid of piece regrouping and 'insignificant' pawn advances.  We call positions of the first type combinative-tactical, of the second type maneuvering-strategical." p. 14

He also gives the following two games as examples of tactical and strategic play respectively.

Maybe you higher rated types get to play in more luxurious venues, but the chairs at my club pretty much preclude sitting for the entire game.

That is why you bring a boat cushion with you for those situations.  You can then focus harder than the other players in a tournament.