is it harder to be a positional master then a tactical master

for example

Magnus Carlsen is amazing at tactics, no one will deny that, but in terms of pure tactics, i don't think he would be the best

but he makes up for it for his positional understanding which is the best in the world

nakamura would be someone that is superior then carlsen at tactics, but does not have the positional understanding....

positional understanding, i feel like is alot harder to master cause you are looking at more variables then tactics

Please provide supporting examples from their games.

i think most people on this forum would agree that Naka is stronger then Magnus in terms of pure tactics

but Magnus has better positional understanding and is overall stronger then Naka

your not serious in thinking Magnus can match Naka in tactics?

I don't know. But if you are going to use this as a basis for your argument that positional play is more difficult to master than tactical play, then you should provide real evidence. Not assumptions based on what you think others will think.

At one time slavery in the US was considered right and all people had to do was say 'My neighbor thinks it is right' to 'prove' their point.

BTW, I agree with what you are saying. You jsut have to look at the analysis provided on this site to know it is true. It is almost ALWAYS tactical and hardly ever poositional. Which kinda sucks because there are plenty of software out there that can provide this, but hardly any that can provide positional analysis.

Do you have any supporting evidence?

why thank you

Hey, I think he was talking to me.

Please don't take credit for my crap.

but isn't that somehow amazingly weird

that naka is a better tacitcian but overall weaker then magnus

you are

No you are wrong!

you're

This is a superking thread. I got it right this time.

I'm not even sure if Nakamura is a better tactician. After all, Carlsen has beaten Nakamura in some highly intense tactical games, such as this one:http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1604495

I could make this a discusion on is Naka more tactical then Magnus and provide evidence of both sides. But... the question is which is harder, tactical master or position master. Tactics can be defined and looked at in any position, we have PCs that can calculate deeper then any human player possible, We have enough access to improve our tactical skill to Master lv heights. Here is my attempt to define a tactic 'A tactic exist when there is hanging pieces or with the king, also badly placed pieces. Checks, captures, threats should be calculated', not the best explained on tactics, but any position with a tactical problem should come down to that. Positional understanding is another story, it can be studied and studied and studied some more, but with out you getting the point soon, it becomes harder to master, asking How to win material here, or how to out play my opponent is 2 different questions. A whole book can be written on one position topic are Pawn Structure, and more and more. Although hundreds of tactics books can be found, it's not going to explain more on tactics, it's more examples to define your skill. Positional Chess I say is harder to Master, if you want examples, post a position, that has a tactic I will define how to look at any position's tactic (not endgame tactics pls). I hope I explained it ok.

Yep

I think you're exactly right--in fact, I would argue that everything in chess is positional. What makes tactics possible? Nothing less than the position of the pieces. I see positional factors as a continuum. Simple positional factors give rise to tactical shots, moves in which you can gain an immediate advantage in some way, and the more you move to the right, the more the subtler and complex positional factors enter into the game. But everything in chess is at it's roots, positional.

Good point OP. Is Carlsen even that good? It just so happens that having end game talent correlates with high winning percentage. His openings suck, he can't play complex positions and he has average tactics. 

I think that Carlsen is better at all phases of the game than Naka hence why he is the world champion and Naka is not

Maybe it's his winning smile?

You forget that Nakamura HAS won against Carlsen... 

Carlsen leads 6-5-7 in rapid/exhibition games

Carlsen leads 10-0-15 in classical games

Source: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chess.pl?yearcomp=exactly&year=&playercomp=either&pid=10084&player=&pid2=52948&player2=&movescomp=exactly&moves=&opening=&eco=&result=

Chesscoaching... classical games are the important games.

But in any case, Carlsen is the WC at all speeds.