Positional play??

Can someone please explain to me exactly in the simplest terms possible what positonal play is ?I have tried studying countless books on openings but i always forget the moves two hours later or mix 'em up...but i just found out from Kasparov's "Garry Kasparov teaches Chess" that with positional play,i dont have to remember anything,the moves come themselves;if only i knew what this was though...pliz help? 

I wait to your response borgqueen.

link failed - google "positional play chess"

try some of these.  the third one on the list seemed to have a lot of information.

Yeah, I remember reading comments like "here Be2 makes sense, developing towards the center" and I'm thinking, but last game you said long diagonals were ideal when Bg2 was played.

Or "The f6 knight is a key defender for black, and so white correctly trades it off" then next game it's "after h6 white certainly doesn't want to take the knight and preserves the bishop pair with Be3"

It's not an easy thing to explain.  It's usually a move that is good because it meets the needs / is logical in the given position and can be seen (or at least argued for) without the need of calculation and regardless of what the opponent's response is.

It would be better if somebody explained the difference between positional and tactical play for us novices!!

How about, tactical moves highlight material advantages (winning pieces) or a mating attack.

Positional moves highlight non-material pluses like activity, space, time, structure, initiative, etc.

Karpov is one of the greatest positional player of all time...

go through all of his won game, especially won against kasparov....

kasparov plays more tactically, sometimes positional.......

but karpov is the best guide to follow regarding positional play........

but you must remember, playing positional doesn't give you a victory, unless you play tactically in the end game....to finish of the game......

karpov is a master of tactics in the end game......

Strategic play is not only play according to pawn structure. Strategy is: "the planning and conduct of long-term objectives in a game." While pawn structure plays a big role, so does tempo, space, material, and development. This does not always involve slow, boring play even. In fact, many times the best strategy for a position is an attack. This is where you can get GMs who play for a good position and then look for combinations after developing and so forth. 

I think Estragon means for pure positional play it's based on the structure (and how the pieces fit it!). The dynamic ideas you're mentioning like the development, guess what, they're best exploited tactically! It's all about how you combine both.

A big change in thought process that improved my chess was, after mastering the basic imbalances knowing if any of them in a given situation was truly good or not. If my pieces looked nice I would ask myself "but does it achieve anything concrete?" and then look at tactics and after that further ways to improve the position, but in doing so it's not impossible to hit a brick wall, when you realize your nice looking pieces are not enough to break down the solid kingside, and then your plan looks stupid. Better hope your opponent wasn't doing something useful! Also a big thing was very simple: constantly look for tactics! Silman's books made me not do this, but as long as you know what your plan is you want to see as many tactics as possible, because they are the most forcing ways to achieve any goal, and that's what makes good players good. Each move they make puts tons of pressure on you and the slighest moment you crack you're already lost, for reasons you might not even understand.

When determining if a piece placement or positional feature is good, you have to make sure there are ways your pieces can take advantage of it. Can your pieces get to the pawn/square? After that, does it actually do anything? After all, you need more than one good piece usually to win. Are possible maneouvers for it too slow because your center is under pressure? Will black just ignore your play and mock you after he while you're distracted doing your plan mates you on the kingside? Chess is a hard game.

@orangehonda: yeah I would get confused like that too. If the bishop has an open long diagonal and it can't go to d3-b5, then superficially g2 is always correct, because the bishop has more activity there. But just because it's more active there doesn't mean it's worth it. For one thing you take more time to set up a fianchetto than normal development, and you also lose some control of the close central squares like d3(well, if the e pawn moves). And of course if the bishop eventually goes then the light squares around the king get a bit weak, and because of that e pawn movements can get discouraged. So although the bishop may offensively be better placed on g2, if it doesn't give black enough concrete problems maybe it's better to be more cautiously minded and develop quicker and more defensively.

True. You have to play where your advantages lie.

According to Euwe: tactics is seeing and strategy is thinking.

According to Purdy: tactics is what you do when there is something to be done; and strategy is what you do when there is nothing to be done.

From my understanding "positional play" has to do more with gaining (or working towards) small "permanent" advantages; things like "space" & if you have this advantage, it does not become apparent until later on. It's not absolutely permanent although it's possible that it can extend from the beginning to the very end of the game (10, 20, 30 moves); usually your opponent will need to do something about this "positional" advantage to keep the game from tilting too much in your favor...if you have tactical advantages, you have to use it or it may disappear in a move or two.