glamdring, when the goose is in the oven, you are in the hands of the gods. There are many uncertainties. All you can do is your best and then hope for the best, just as in positional chess.
Positional Chess
Sort:
I don't agree with characterizing positional play as uncertain or guess work.
It's solidly anchored in logic and produces clear results.
If the position is equal, then sure, you hope for the best. But if you have a nice positional advantage all you have to hope for is that you're not blind enough to miss a tactic.
leiph15, maybe you need to listen to some live grandmaster commentary which often enough goes along these lines: "I like this position for white"..."Really? I would have thought black is doing more than ok." There was a time, for example, when the Sicilian Scheveningen was thought to be unsound for black. Kasparov on the other hand used it as a main weapon for a long time.
Should I read Simple Chess by Stean? Will that help? I have read all messages and am still lost.Or should I just stick with tactics which I understand. I now have HTRYC which I will read. Any book suggestions that are easier would be appreciated
Jadulla wrote:
Positional play is about 95% of the chess game, so don't underestimate it
And tactics being the other 95%?
What???
Positional play is the plan or ideas behind the moves and tactics are the means by which you get them. Positional play is where you seek to gain an advantage in some form and tactics are the tools you use to execute that plan.
eastyz wrote:
leiph15, maybe you need to listen to some live grandmaster commentary which often enough goes along these lines: "I like this position for white"..."Really? I would have thought black is doing more than ok." There was a time, for example, when the Sicilian Scheveningen was thought to be unsound for black. Kasparov on the other hand used it as a main weapon for a long time.
Opening theory is always best guess. And yes, some positions are hard to evaluate and players disagree.
Other positions are easy, and all GMs will agree one player is better or even winning.
Use tactics to arrive at positions. Analyze positions and use tactics like examining a table in billiards and shooting. Very different but relevant
"Tactics flow from a superior position". Not the opposite
How do you come to know whether I am positional or tactical player?
you cannot achieve good positional gain without tactics or unless your opponent is just trash
tactics is still the dominant factor, don't worry about it until you are much better
Jadulla wrote:
"Tactics flow from a superior position". Not the opposite
wrong!
Yeah, when your opponent must avoid tactics you can make positional gains.
Positional gains allow you to execute tactics later.
It all works together, but you definitely need to learn tactics to start.
SacrificeQueen wrote:
How do you come to know whether I am positional or tactical player?
When you know a lot about both and then during a game you're presented with a legitimate choice (both continuations are plausible) and you make a conscious decision to choose a positional continuation over a tactical one (or vice versa).
e.g. you give up your lead in development to give them a bad structure.
Or you let your opponent take time to trade off their worst piece so you can gain an initiative.
Before conscious decisions it's less style and more trying to avoid mistakes and randomness.
leiph15 wrote:
SacrificeQueen wrote:
How do you come to know whether I am positional or tactical player?
When you know a lot about both and then during a game you're presented with a legitimate choice (both continuations are plausible) and you make a conscious decision to choose a positional continuation over a tactical one (or vice versa).
Sorry, but thats not true. A good chess player should try to play the best move in every position, whether its a positional or tactical one is completly non relevant. For example when you have a mate in two tactic you should not say " I am a positional player, I will play positional and dont go for the mate". Play the best posssible move! A positional move is then good when there is no better tactical sequence.
There is not always a choice, true. In those cases players should simply try to find the best move and then play it.
Other times there is a choice, and that's when strong players can disagree with each other.
I'm not saying choosing a positional continuation over a concrete, calculate-able, tactic that wins. I'm saying choosing a position that lends itself to tactics vs a position that lends itself to positional play.
e.g. an attack vs an endgame.
Sometimes an attack is foolish and the endgame is very good.
Sometimes the endgame is just equal but the attack is very strong.
Other times both offer some winning chances, and the player has to decide.
If chess were a novel, simple tactics would be like spell check. More complicated tactics maybe word choice and sentence structure. Positional play like character development. Strategy the storyline arc.
Off the top of my head, hopefully makes some sense haha.