Positional vs Romantic Chess
Sort:
I prefer positional. Open plays are over too quickly and positional play forces you to play the best moves
I prefer positional. If I can gain a tactical advantage by force I will, but positional chess will shut down reckless play every time
Oct 4, 2015
0
#5
I'm highly, highly skeptical that there's a "romantic" and "positional" style. I don't know where people get these dichotomies.
Aquarius550 wrote:
To elaborate, a romantic style to me would favor boldness over accuracy with positional play being the other way around. I look at players like Tal as being romantic with daring, intuitive moves that might not always hold up under computer analysis but that are effective enough to win games. The flipside to me is a player like Ulf Andersson who plays like an anaconda, taking his time to build a solid position and then eke out an advantage little by little with strong, accurate play, without taking any risks.
I'm highly, highly skeptical that there's a "romantic" and "positional" style. I don't know where people get these dichotomies.
I prefer romantic..if i want a long game i will play axis and allies or monopoly :)
Positional to play ... Romantic to watch !
To my way of thinking, if you're going to be playing in tournaments and really care about the number next to your name, play a slow positional style. Gain small advantages and slowly grind them into a win. This style of play is best for the risk-averse.
But if you play for the fun, excitement, and beauty of the game, try to play like Morphy.
Which style of play do you prefer and why? Positional- typically games with closed centers, lots of tension that just hangs there and a gradual increase of pressure until one side gives way. Romantic- gambit style play with open centers, wild sacrifices and lots of movement. Which style is more fun for you? Which style do you think wins more games?