"... many of the lines one sees played at club level are gambits, which lead to the kind of exciting open play that many players find attractive. ... Openings such as the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit, Albin Counter-Gambit, Latvian Gambit, etc., are all played regularly at club and league level, ... there is much to be said for playing such systems at lower levels of play, particularly if you enjoy playing sharp attacking lines. Many players find it uncomfortable to defend against an opponent who is prepared to sacrifice material in return for speculative attacking chances. In such positions, the cost of a single error is much higher than in quieter openings. If you make a mistake in a typical Reti Opening middlegame, you may end up getting a small positional disadvantage, but if you make a similar mistake in the sort of wild tactical positions which often arise from gambits, you are quite likely to find yourself being mated, or losing a substantial amount of material. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2003)
Positional play is harder than tactical
Latvian gambit is rubbish at any level? But seriously... position and tactics surely go together? As somebody say, playing many good strong position move will lead to tactic chance... is not a case of either and or?
Speaking as a complete patzer I feel that positional players dont exist below the IM strength. Upto that point it all tactics tactics and more tactics.
Regard to AZero and d4... AZero played million of games to come up with his style... even if to avoid berlin defence or sicilian is irrelevant... he play what has shown best?
E4 is most popular because most people are right handed... so opening centre right feel more natural yes? And of course teachers promote that move... but e4 lead to immediate weakening of king side, and does not develop two piece... because most will play kings knight next move... and lock the bishop?!
Many stats now show d4 to have a slight, but consistent lead... and am thinking this become most popular opening... can avoid berlin and sicilian game, French defence also...
I thought positional play is overall flow of the game- like choosing a king side pawn rush and casting queen side, or "I'm going to bring both my rooks over to this open file to get them in play" it's more the overall strategy of the game, and tactics is choosing which sequence to move your pawns in for the pawn rush for example- position is the overall macrocosm of the board and tactics are the details on how you will execute the positional objective. Is this understanding wrong?
I would say tactics refers to a rather short sequence of forcing moves, often connected to sacrifices. Strategy is more or less everything else, related to improving the position.
The tactical vs positional play debate will never end, with dogmatism and strawmen flying from one side to another all the time.
Positional incompetence make you die slowly, while tactical incompetence kills you on the spot!
Right Lion....AZ doesn't even know the names of openings, let alone the Berlin Defence !
MC, right now the best player ever (in absolute), better stay away from AZ. It would make him look like an inaccurate DOH !....and that's the truth !
wow
Considered Rubensteins immortal. Look at the position after 23.g3. How did black arrive at this position?
Piece coordination.
Piece activity.
Knowing and understanding strategic things like 6.cd5 releases the pawn tension, and develops blacks bishop. 10.Qd2? leaving the queen on a file that will open soon.
Post after post after post with this ongoing argument over which is better: "Tactics or Strategy" Simply put. If you want to be good at tactics, you need to understand strategy.
"Tactics flow from a superior position" How do you get a superior position? By understanding piece activity, piece placement, pawn structure, space, creating weak squares, and weak pawns. And how to take advantage of those things.
I was watching a chess video by GM Van-Kampen, who claimed that the reason positional play is so difficult is because it requires the most calculation of all - you have to anticipate so many opponent responses that will make you lose the slight edge that you have.
In comparison, very sharp positions are often not as difficult, since the forcing nature of the positions reduces calculation.
It is easier to blunder in tactical positions, but far more difficult to find the best continuations (or plans) in more quiet positions.
Wow Bacon, i quite enjoyed that? Qd2 felt wrong straight away... i thinking Qc2 instead, which master player suggest also. is good lesson yes?!
Apart from this you say and confirm my idea... that building a good position will make tactic chance, is not a question of either and or...
... If you want to be good at tactics, you need to understand strategy. ...
Has anyone advocated ignoring strategy?
Wow Bacon, i quite enjoyed that? Qd2 felt wrong straight away... i thinking Qc2 instead, which master player suggest also. is good lesson yes?!
Apart from this you say and confirm my idea... that building a good position will make tactic chance, is not a question of either and or...
Thank You Lion. I get tired of all the posts here arguing over what is better, what is more important, blah...blah...blah. "Im tactical...", "Im aggressive...". "Im strategic..."
If youre not good at the one, the other wont matter, and yes...they go hand on hand.
… If youre not good at the one, the other wont matter, and yes...they go hand on hand.
Has anyone advocated not being good at one or the other? Is "good" a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree?
"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
"... what really interested me is style: Lakdawala is superior in openings, is a powerful positional player, but has trouble with terrifying time pressure. Aldama is completely different, with the dynamic Mexican player showing off amazing attacking and tactical skills. ..." - IM Jeremy Siulman (2018)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/positional-player-vs-tactical-player
"... Whereas by combination values are transformed, they are proved and confirmed by 'position play.' Thus, position play is antagonistic to combination, as becomes evident when a 'combinative player' meets with his counterpart, the 'positional player.' The two often are wholly different in make up and constitution. The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. Thus the following story is told of an onlooker at a game. He was a combinative player. Suddenly he interrupted the players: 'I see a magnificent combination, a sacrifice of the queen,' he excitedly called to him who was to move. 'If your opponent then takes the pawn, he is mated, and if he goes out of check, he is mated in two.' 'Well,' replied the player, 'but the principal question is: what am I to do if he captures the queen?' 'That is the only variation,' replied the combination player, 'which I have not yet looked into.'
However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. ..." - Emanuel Lasker
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf
"... Can you be a Positional Chess Genius? ... is ... meant as a companion to Can you be a Tactical Genius? … The important thing is for the author to select positions that although they have tactics, positional considerations dominate. [Angus Dunnington] has done a good job of selecting puzzles that have this quality. …"
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093253/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review347.pdf
I thought positional play is overall flow of the game- like choosing a king side pawn rush and casting queen side, or "I'm going to bring both my rooks over to this open file to get them in play" it's more the overall strategy of the game, and tactics is choosing which sequence to move your pawns in for the pawn rush for example- position is the overall macrocosm of the board and tactics are the details on how you will execute the positional objective. Is this understanding wrong?