Positional Chess

'Tactics flow from a superior position' is a quote from Bobby Fischer.

'wrong' - user 'sexy-sunshine'

What a clown...

blah blah blah.... how often do we see it that a player in a completly lost position saves the game due to a tactic that the other player didnt see? Very often... Or do you need examples you noob?

Ah, let's all listen in awe : our little 14-year-old is going to explain us why Fischer didn't understand a thing about chess :-)

oh this noob hicetnunc obviously missunderstood Fischers quote 

Always funny being called a noob by a class D American teenager who can't even understand ideas in his own language :-)

Obviously 'flows' never meant 'appears exclusively in', but i'm not surprised to see such an uneducated in chess and impolite boy being unable to speak his own language above engine-monkey level...

hahah first of all I´m not an American but thanks for rating my English so high . And I know what flow mean you idiot :D. YOu simply mussunderstood his quote because you cant play chess well enough. Look at your ratings... 

Positional play is about improving the long-term potential of your army, or decreasing the potential of your opponent's. It's mainly improving the scope of your pieces (conv. decreasing the scope of your opponent's), or improving the pawn structure.

Tactical play is about operations of a forcing nature (through threats of winning material or checkmating the king).

Fischer's quote means that if you've improved your army through positional play, you'll see naturally more opportunities for tactical play emerge (hence 'flow'). Actually, this idea was expressed long ago in a slightly different way by first World Champion Steinitz.

As many posters have already said, it doesn't mean that positional and tactical play are independant : you often have to use little tactics to achieve a positional goal for example.

Noob

Sexy-Sunshine wrote: 'noob'

After having labelled Fischer's quote 'wrong', I think this aptly completes your convincing display of master-level chess understanding :-)

I never said its wrong. Lying seems to be something you do very often. You are simply a noob who doesnt understand it.

I just looked at some of your games, they were terrible.

Man, this little engine monkey is really mean... Reminds me of Silman's recent article :-)

I'm very proud of all my games : I've all played them by myself :-)

You are not improving your position, Sexy... Maybe try using some different tactics.

The only thing you are able to is accusing better players of cheating. I never cheated in any of my games and obviously my account would have been closed otherwise. Please stop posting jealous trash hicet and go improve your chess :)

You spit out primitive insults and any objective argumentation is seemingly beyond your ability to grasp. There is no way anyone are jealous on a sad little shit like you.

Another insulting "grown up" (haha).

leiph15 you obviously don't have much experience of GMs, no disrespect.  They don't always agree about whether one player is winning or losing.  I am not talking about openings.  If what you say is true, all GM games would end after the opening stage as all GMs would agree on the result (whether it is win, lose or draw).

Strategy and positional chess are expressions for the same thing.  The objective is somewhat less concrete such as getting a strong position eg with a well posted knight.  Tactics is when there is a clash and one side is trying to cash in on its better position.  You can never separate positional chess and tactics.  You need to have an understanding of how a good position lends itself to favorable tactics.  Study the books but you have to sharpen your tactical ability as well so as not to miss too many opportunities. No good cooking a goose if you don't know how to eat it.

Tactics is how far you can clearly see ahead, each move in a sequence. As soon as you can't or don't see beyond a specific sequence of moves, it's positional.