Positional or tactical?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
It seems like asking whether you prefer moving your Pawns or your King; both are an integral and necessary part of every game. While tactics are more important, you won't get very far by totally ignoring positional aspects. As such, every game you play will call for both tactical and positional analysis, no matter which you prefer.
tactical
Nov 16, 2008
0
#4
I agree with JimmyM, you really need to be sharp in both aspects to be good.
meh, ultimately it's the position of the peices that decides whether the enemy king is in checkmate. If your peices are turned funny where they can't get where they need to be short of 20 moves you could be in a bind. But without solid tactical play you might not even have the pieces left at all!
There aren't two ways. It is a combination. Brilliant positional play will often result in a few nice tactics and a brilliant tactic may result in a positional advantage, etc.. There is no separation. Chess is an organic game.
He's asking which you prefer guys.
For me, tactics all the way.
I am a positional player. I am not the best, but I really think it is the better way to play.
Why? A positional player (at least in my case) with a strong enough tactical strength, will make tactical moves if the position calls for it. If it does not, he/she will not. Where as a tactical player may try to make the position into one where tactical moves are needed ... even if that may be the best move.
Maybe I am reading to much into it?
exigentsky wrote:
There aren't two ways. It is a combination. Brilliant positional play will often result in a few nice tactics and a brilliant tactic may result in a positional advantage, etc.. There is no separation. Chess is an organic game.
On the other hand, executing some brilliant tactics may leave you with long term positional weaknesses or you may have to choose between moves that would either lead to a tactical exchange in your favor vs. those that would form a strong, sound position. You're right to say it's both, but often you don't get the both of best worlds with each move. That said, I prefer to play positional games, but I'm still at the stage where finding those key positional advantages are difficult for me.
rednblack wrote:
exigentsky wrote:
There aren't two ways. It is a combination. Brilliant positional play will often result in a few nice tactics and a brilliant tactic may result in a positional advantage, etc.. There is no separation. Chess is an organic game.
On the other hand, executing some brilliant tactics may leave you with long term positional weaknesses or you may have to choose between moves that would either lead to a tactical exchange in your favor vs. those that would form a strong, sound position. You're right to say it's both, but often you don't get the both of best worlds with each move. That said, I prefer to play positional games, but I'm still at the stage where finding those key positional advantages are difficult for me.
Well put! Of course the way I see it, It would more likely be a positional player to see such a line (in either case) :-)