Dorfman tried to write about this tipic in his two books. It is not clear cut as dynamic advantages can be turned into static ones and vice a versa. The key is know when a position requires the correct approach. Really it is a matter od styple but no matter what you need to know tactics--Petrosian was an amazing tactician and blitz player. Also you have to know how to win in the end game as many of these advantages rely on converting to a "won" endgame.
Dynamic or Static?
Sort:
But if you are absolutely tactical and a clever positional player simply absorbs your attack, (Like Botvinnik did with Tal in the '60s rematch.) what would your position be then? With little advantage and no attack?
In chess, as we all know, there are two seperate ways to play the game: The first is an agressive, attacking style, and the second is a careful, positional style. Attack, or maneuver.
Tactics and strategy are not ways to play the game because you can attack strategically or defend tactically. Thus, we have Aaron Nimzovich and Tigran Petrosian on one side, and Vladimir Vukovic and Mikhail Tal on another. One for static advantages, and one for dynamic ones.
My question to you is: What do you see as being more important to your overall gameplay? Do you think static or dynamic advantages are better to possess, and why?
(On a sidenote: An interesting thought. If one side has a lot of dynamic advantages in their position, and another side has more static advantages in their position, who would win? Assume that both players play perfectly.)