Will Playing Tactically When my Style is Positional Improve my Chess Skill?

"... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. … However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. …" - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf

For players well below that higher-than-2200 level, is it perhaps natural to discuss issues related to the lack of harmony?

I do know about about such a claim, but I would think that Capablanca would not have been eager to make such a statement after the 1924 tournament.

I think it is better to show what Lasker actually wrote.

You previously referred to a Capablanca belief that he solved chess. If you switch to a belief that chess was going to be solved, that makes the idea somewhat more believable as something that could have happened after the 1924 tournament.

1560 here is probably 1400 ELO imo....beginner is under 1200 ELO.

1400 ELO is an experienced beginner...

The more you will play the better your tactical skills will improve......

at 1600 ELO(that equal 1800 here)  you need very good tactical skills.

above that i have no experience  

If they are using it in the context of educational, then yes, there is a single definition. Otherwise, yes you are right..if its a spongey hobbyist joke clown flake troll show there is no definition.

If you look back to post #8 (made about 4 days ago), you can see a llamonade2 (formerly Chebyshevv) post commenting on working on one's weakest areas. If you, or anyone, wonders about why the discussion was not regarded as settled at that point, there is always the possibility to look at the first three pages.

@kindaspongey: "I do not see anywhere in there where you claimed that the starting position demands a particular opening."

As I haven't written that the starting position demands a particular opening, I don't see the need to write a reply.

@kindaspongey: "Incorrect. I referred specifically to the issue of correct usage of "positional" and "tactical". I have no reason to doubt your ability to write authoritatively on many aspects of chess, but as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage."

For starters, I specifically wrote about the concepts of positional and tactical styles. A situation may require a tactical solution, a positional solution or, most commonly, a combination of both, but none means that a player can subjectively modify the position's inner logic. Therefore, there's no positional or tactical style.

See it this way: Say there's a job involving the use of hexagonal screws and wrenches (Allen). Let's assume they're in millimeters and someone tries to use a 5 mm wrench in a 10 mm screw or a 10 mm wrench in a 5 mm screw. Would you say that the first case implies a "5 mm style" and the second a "10 mm style"? And even if a 5 mm wrench is used on a 5 mm screw, can we speak of a "5 mm style"?

lol, I love how Kingside's forum blew up into an argument between spongey and YGNR xD

It seems to me that we have no reason to doubt that a player's choice of opening is a problem that might be resolved by the sort of questions suggested for consideration by GM John Nunn (and others). GM John Nunn (and others) have referred to such questions as a consideration of style.

"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

IM Georgios Souleidis: How would you characterize your style?

GM Hikaru Nakamura: Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space.

Didn't get the word from Nicator65?

In the opening you know there are a lot of style....if i feel like playing the London system or the Danish Gambit......

Well, the London system is (imo) a more positional opening, while the Danish Gambit is a more dynamic aggressive opening. I mean, unless that is supposed to show that you have a universal "playing style", then I am not quite sure which "playing style" you are referring to.

hah!

Yeah, maybe, but I would think that Capablanca would have been very aware of the 1924 experience still fresh in everyone’s mind.

Actually, I've found that chess.com's ratings reflect a player's current playing strength better than USCF or FIDE ratings do, because people tend to play a lot more online these days.   USCF and FIDE ratings are lower because they aren't usually up to date with a player's current strength, since fewer players participate in OTB tournaments than play online nowadays and because those ratings usually lag a player's actual playing strength.   For example, I haven't played a USCF rated tournament in about 25 years, so my old USCF rating of 1470 is moot.   On a side note, there's no such thing as an "experienced beginner".   What you're referring to is called a novice.   It goes: beginner, novice, intermediate, advanced, Master, Grandmaster.   People tend to disagree about the ratings ranges for these categories though, since the official chess classes are E, D, C, B, A, Expert, Master, IM and GM.

As with many things, I think it is a mistake to think only in terms of extremes. I suspect that many players do some sort of mixture of tactical and positional thinking with a difference in emphasis from one player to another. As I read it, KingSideInvasion was thinking of trying to push himself towards more tactical thinking by means of a changed opening selection and perhaps other things.

Well i prefer: debutant(beginner less than 1000 elo),joueur occasionnel (occasional player at 1200 elo),joueur avancer ( 1400 elo),joueur experimenter 1600 elo),joueur de club (1800 elo),joueur de pointe (2000 elo) etc etc....

Well i prefer: debutant(beginner less than 1000 elo),joueur occasionnel (occasional player at 1200 elo),joueur avancer ( 1400 elo),joueur experimenter 1600 elo),joueur de club (1800 elo),joueur de pointe (2000 elo) etc etc....