Improving positional play

@BlackWarmaster, I don't believe you are a "weak player",
you probably just don't have the confidence to admit that you can go to better heights. There is no such thing as a weak player, only a player that is less experienced and how do you know if you are less experienced yet? You probably have a lot of potential and could do well, so I don't believe you are a weak player despite how many blunders you make or what not, as we are all human and nobody is perfect, so with this said you are not a "weak player", you just need to play more, stay dedicated, study and do the best you can, and the rest will be figure itself out for you if you do the same.

Personally speaking, I am a very pattern-based person, so I find engraining patterns much better than learning "principles" or "do's and don'ts". 

This is what I would do if I were in your shoes (My rating is 1600 so I'm not quite as credible as some other people on this thread)

• Look over dozens of classical chess games and try to understand why they are making the moves
• Watch youtubers that commentate on their own games (Chessfactor, Eric Rosen, Chess Network, etc.) And try to understand what they mean
• Study positional patterns and basic pawn structure
• PLAY A LOT and analyze your games

IF you do want a full guide I would recommend "BEGINNER TO 2000 - COMPLETE CHESS STRATEGY" it's an excellent playlist on YouTube 

@KetoOn1963, No doubt that is always a good sign, for the older generations to help the new!

@KingSideInvasion, Yes again of what good resources can be used, it is proven that there is no specific way to go that you can only go the way that is best for you. 

I didn't touch a single book, but I did watch videos, and annotated a bunch of master games and along with that watched a chess analyzer named Agadmator on youtube.

There are a bunch of resources to help your positional play @Jamari01 and they are abundant on the platform on the internet, youtube especially.

Yes, I got to 1600 in a year, I think it has to do with my love of chess and not studying the conventional way. 

Yes for me my grind came from experience and learning from getting crapped on daily, but I studied for 6 months on chess knoweldge from pdfs, videos, anaylzing, annotating, lessons, basic endgames and checkmates, checkmatepatterns and all mating patters from beginner to advanced, and learned various other important things such as the becoming better positionally etc. from that time all i know is from I am up here in the 1700's which is nice.

But honestly I got up here recently since I have been on the grind, my goal is to make it in 1850/1900+ in blitz before the summer is over, and I think this is more than doable. If feel like my chess knowledge and understanding could cover a lot and it is very broad as 6 months of study may not seem like a lot but it is and it will do a lot for you later on I will tell you that as for the things I have experienced it has made a lot of things easier for me in the longrun.  

But that is my chess story. 

To clarify the concept: Positional play is balancing active play (pressure, initiative, tactical solutions) from afar.

Although I can imagine the possibility of someone playing accurately in every kind of position, meaning they understand or know the pressure, initiative, and tactical solutions that may arise from any given position, I don't know of anyone with such knowledge and talent.

For most is hard work and to specialize. For example, I believe Karpov was already a GM when he began playing the Sicilian as Black (he was 1...e5 against 1.e4 since his childhood). Karpov is generally regarded as one of the best positional players in history, yet his Sicilians in the early '70s left much to be desired. Of course, due to his talent and hard work he solved the problems in little time (for most of us the whole life isn't enough). Taking Karpov as an example, again, he began playing 1.d4 regularly only after losing the world title in the '80s, and he reached his maximum competitive form when he wasn't the World Champion anymore, mostly due to his better understanding of how things would evolve in systems arising from 1.d4.

Then, to answer your question, you must begin to solve the problem by parts. Positional play is about not engaging in forced active play until you have the "better ground", mostly due to the accumulation of "small advantages" which, paradoxically, are often obtained through small active operations. This is because without having better ground you can't tell if the forced lines will favor you, and if it's the opponent who has the better ground, logic dictates he will come out on top.

Now, which are these "small advantages"? That's the specializing part. In some systems, they are what Steinitz identified (weaknesses, control of the center, open lines, kings' security, etc.), but in many others the advantages are tied to harmony and coordination as to develop and deny active play simultaneously. Let me give you an example. Take the Boleslavsky structure in the Sicilian (Black's pawns in d6 and e5 against White's pawn in e4). Yes, there is a weak square in d5 and a backward pawn in d6, but it's difficult to find or create any other weaknesses in Black's camp. It turns out that defending d6 is rather easy with just a bishop in e7, thus leaving the whole Black army somewhat free to coordinate actively... which may put White on the defense and no way to exploit the static weaknesses. Thus, positional play in that specific structure often revolves in operations on the king and queenside rather than the squares d6 and d5, because White gains little by only playing against them, and Black knows that the mere ...Pd6-d5 push often clarifies the situation and leads to complete equalizing.

@TeacherOfPain, thanks for the lesson. Honestly I can't even comment on some of your ideas because they are somewhat foreign to my style of play. That is of course what makes it interesting - it's challenging. I'm going to play around with it 🍴. 

Edit

I think most of my passivity stems from my understanding of the endgame. I see certain positions I don't want to end up in later on in the game and I then avoid certain moves and trades. This is an issue I've had to remind myself of. I remind myself that I can't hold on to everything at once, as in I can't calculate the entire game. Those very positions I'm avoiding might just be winning ones if I remember to take it a step at a time.

It's like how some players might avoid a double pawn structure at all costs, but in truth there are certain situations when a double pawn structure might be winning, but of course if you've already decided against it before you've even began the game, then it's going to go very differently.

No problem @WSama, always glad to help, again my analyzing is not perfect but it helped you in any way that was effective so it was good time spent...

Also, play how you need to play if you feel like you need to play passive or more safe then go for it.  I can't judge your playstyle, only can I judge moves that can be seen as better or worse in a specific position, the same goes for engines as how would they know anybodies playstyle? Well they don't so it is fine to play passive and if you are better at playing passive, stick to what you are most comfortable. But I will say that switching up your mindset is good for diversity and different ways of looking at the game. 

For me personally I don't have a style, I just play as active as possible and see what I can do out of a game. 

But I will tell you if you get good at the endgame, you won't mind what ending you get to or trading specific pieces to an endgame,(unless your are in an inferior position, don't know the endgame etc.) as you would just be good at all endgames and dominate in them because of how confident and comfortable you feel in them. This comes in experience, but it also comes in study so study the middle game and Endgame and your game will definintly improve, it helped me so I it should help you as well. 

But anyways your welcome and hopefully this has been helpful to you, and you @Jamari01.