Positional play is harder than tactical

Hello speaking as both a positional and tactical player depending on the time of day I think that playing good positional chess is much harder than tactical or attacking chess not to say that tactical chess is more effective but that being good positionaly is much more skillful as opposed to just having a high tactical knowledge. While I have immense respect for great sacrificial attacking players I think being able to correctly asses and make plans out of positions is much more skillful considering you cant just go out and practice positional play you have to learn it. What do you guys think?

"Hello speaking as both a positional and tactical player..."

What does this even mean???

I mean I enjoy both positional and attacking/tactical play

 

Good positional play is founded on tactical nuances. (Jussupow)

Who wuzzit that said tactix are NOT 99% chess & that it's positional (....some GM) ?

They're sooo FULL of it !....it's more like 100%....and something came along that didn't know chess existed at noon. Then before appetizers it was the best in the world.

So someone ?....pleez go tell Alpha Zero that chess isn't 100% tactix & their threats thereof ! 

Teichmann: Chess is 99% tactics.

Hilarious that AZ doesn't play 1. e4 'cuz it finds 1. d4 better !

And funny that is doesn't need any understanding of positional play to make a utter mockery outta this game.

Just curious....what's the 1% leftover for now ?

Not sure about that. Computer teach us day in, day out that there are random tactics everywhere. They find it nonchalantly, constantly.

Post 1 won game each. We'll tell what player you are.

Computers were also very weak until we taught them how to do more than calculate tactics.

It all blends together during a game, strategy, tactics, and positional play, but sure, strategy is something you have to study. Positional play and tactics can sort of be done by intuition and brute force respectively.

 

Even though many people use "positional" and "strategic" interchangeably, I'm using the words like this:
Tactics = short term forcing moves
Positional play = short term non-forcing moves (e.g. rook on open file just because)
Strategy = long term planning (usually related to technique and knowledge in the endgame phase or with pawn structures)

I am helping my friend to improve. So we play OTB and I would explain why I would put my bishop on C4. That it might look ackward there, but let's see if it will be a monster piece later in the game. Then I would look for tactics to take advantage of it. If I can see that he has a awsome square for his knight I will force him to find it before we move on. I feel that is some sort of positional chess, and then move on to find tactics or more pressure to exploit those positional strenghts.

alpha zero dosent play e4 because it considers the berlin defense to be just too strong to deal with

No. It's b'cuz BF wuz wrongo when he said 1. e4 wuz best by test.

AZero not playing e4 is a sign of what is coming... d4 will soon become most popular opening and flank opening will rise.

e4 is done...

your uhh your fuckin joking right? the only reason alpha zero dosent play e4 is because of the berlin defense 

I think whats most important is a health combination of positional tactics and tactical positions.

Perhaps some people perceive tactics as easier to understand because we are used to train simple combination, which are forced, short and with a clear output.

Weak players are only happy when a combination leads to winning a queen (which is considered better than abstracts outputs like mate in one or two) while super GMs are happy when they can make a small concession in the opponent’s position, something like a weakness in the white squares around the opponent’s king, or making the opponent place a piece in a less active square.

Sometimes they are already happy when they spot a shadow of a weakness in the opponent’s position, to quote Nimzowitsch.

The true is that there are simple and complex tactics and simple and complex strategical moves, and that tactics and strategy are usually “working together”.

Strong players are threatening a combination, and the (strong) opponents see this coming and have often to make moves that are not that great from a positional point of view to prevent this combination. Was this a tactical or strategical move? Both.

And a great deal in the game between strong players is to force the opponent to play a position that they don’t like, like “too complex” or “too simple” or something else.