Im Chowder...
Will Playing Tactically When my Style is Positional Improve my Chess Skill?
Sort:
I'm never quite sure what players mean when they describe themselves as "tactical" or "positional." Perhaps the OP could post a couple of examples where he preferred a "positional" continuation to a "tactical" one, or vice versa
Jan 2, 2020
0
#24
Laskersnephew wrote:
I'm never quite sure what players mean when they describe themselves as "tactical" or "positional." Perhaps the OP could post a couple of examples where he preferred a "positional" continuation to a "tactical" one, or vice versa
I think goes along with their favorite player(s)
With Tal, Alekhine, and Kasparov being the favorites.
Tal, Alekhine, and Kasparov were all capable of positional masterpeices. Karpov, Petrosion, and company can unleash astounding combinations.
At our less exalted level, "positional" means "I don't like to calculate anything difficult," while "tactical" means "I lose material early, but sometimes I get lucky."
Jan 2, 2020
0
#26
Laskersnephew wrote:
Tal, Alekhine, and Kasparov were all capable of positional masterpeices. Karpov, Petrosion, and company can unleash astounding combinations.
At our less exalted level, "positional" means "I don't like to calculate anything difficult," while "tactical" means "I lose material early, but sometimes I get lucky."
Thats the best explanation i have seen yet.
"I don't like to calculate anything difficult," could also be ""I don't know how to calculate anything difficult,"
Jan 2, 2020
0
#27
A brutal shattering of the illusions of intermediate chess players going on here...
Jan 2, 2020
0
#28
Strangemover wrote:
A brutal shattering of the illusions of intermediate chess players going on here...
This misnomers have been going on for so long, its time to shatter them.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#29
Laskersnephew wrote:
... while "tactical" means "I lose material early, but sometimes I get lucky."
I guess I'm a tactical player.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#31
IMBacon wrote:
Strangemover wrote:
A brutal shattering of the illusions of intermediate chess players going on here...
This misnomers have been going on for so long, its time to shatter them.
Never! We shall not be enlightened.
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/what-is-my-style
Jan 2, 2020
0
#32
autobunny wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Strangemover wrote:
A brutal shattering of the illusions of intermediate chess players going on here...
This misnomers have been going on for so long, its time to shatter them.
Never! We shall not be enlightened.
Ignorance is bliss...
blueemu wrote:
Laskersnephew wrote:
... while "tactical" means "I lose material early, but sometimes I get lucky."
I guess I'm a tactical player.
Me too!
Jan 2, 2020
0
#34
Laskersnephew wrote:
blueemu wrote:
Laskersnephew wrote:
... while "tactical" means "I lose material early, but sometimes I get lucky."
I guess I'm a tactical player.
Me too!
I have been a "tactical" player for 40+ years.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#35
KingSideInvasion wrote:
Hi, chess.com ! I have been facing this dilemma:
I am around 1560 level on chess.com (Rapid is the only time control I play seriously in), and I would consider my style of play positional. So I was wondering, would playing more tactically (tactical openings, more open positions) improve my overall chess game, or would it be better to stick to what I feel comfortable? I've heard before that beginners (I don't know if 1560 would be considered beginner or intermediate) should play open, tactical positions such as gambits and such, but at the same time, I don't play nearly as good when I play purely tactically. So I was wondering, would it be best to play more tactical games and maybe go down in rating a bit but eventually go up again, or should I stick to what I am comfortable with? I would appreciate anybody's answer to this question though it would be nice if some higher rated players who have potentially gone through the same could answer.
Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am in close to the same position as you are. The decision I made for myself is: practice tactics enough so that I don't feel they are a serious weakness. Use tactics to sometimes win games when my good positions cause opponents to offer me tactical shots.
But positional play is what really motivates me as a chess player. I play mostly daily games now because I can really study and understand the positions I have.
I study tactics by playing 5/5 blitz games. My blitz rating is low - blitz 1250 or so, as compared to daily 1800. Play blitz, analyze game, rinse and repeat. Lots of tactics, and it's also a good way to learn openings as well.
So my tactical play is not good enough to do well at blitz games. But it is more than good enough to play decent daily games. It took me a long time, but I am very content with this. My style is positional, not tactical. It's just what I like.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#36
Why doesnt chess.com have a club for players that dont know how to use chess terminology correctly?
Jan 2, 2020
0
#37
IMBacon wrote:
Why doesnt chess.com have a club for players that dont know how to use chess terminology correctly?
It's a big club called chess.com.
baddogno wrote:
I believe it was our own esteemed Chess.com personality and IM Danny Rensch who declared that folks under 2000 rating don't have styles, just weaknesses they're trying to avoid.
Good one. Danny is too funny. He might be right though.
Jan 2, 2020
0
#40
no, play to your strengths.
eg, im horrible at this positional mumbo-jumbo, so i try to play more open, dynamic games
That being said, i still have to be able to play positional chess (despite all my efforts to avoid it in game), so I practice exercises in books and go through model games.
But don't change your play "style" to improve at one aspect of chess
In playing any games, one can think or call himself anyway. Role-playing makes the games more fun. I'm Superman!