Positional vs Tactical

With the Tactics Trainer, I understand what being tactical is. I hope this is not a hair-splitting exercise - but can a chess player be solely tactical or solely positional ? Apparently, Mikhail Tal is a brilliant tactician ( I think for this, he was called the Magic of Riga ) but does it mean he threw caution to the wind with his pawn structure, etc. things that positional play emphasize ? On the other hand, Karpov is apparently positional - he will manoeuvre and manoeuvre until he gets the situation he desires - but does it mean he forgo tactical opportunities ?

I am curious because I like to know what these styles of play are - and also largely to understand what kind of player I am. I don't often do fancy stuff like X-ray, deflection, etc and my games get drawn out to many moves ( or maybe I just don't know what I am doing or maybe just waiting for the right opportunity ) - does that mean I am more inclined towards positional play ( ha ha - I know it may not be necessarily true as I may just be bumbling along ).

 I haven't come across a book examining this aspect of chess play so what do you think ? 

 

 

 

 

I'd say, don't get bogged down in these terms.  When you say the term Chess Master,  understand that it means someone who has a mastership of the game. This means in all areas.  Masters considered tactical players are excellent positional players and Masters considered positionally inclined  must be excellent tacticians.   Other distinguishing terms apply also.   Both Karpov and Petrosian, noted for their positonal/defensive  abilities, were  great attackers while Morphy and Alekhine, known for their attacks, were great defenders.

 

Some players prefer open games which are more tactical in nature; some prefer closed games which require good positional sense.  Possibly their preferences more than any particular dominant skill might define Masters as tactically or positionally oriented.

> Can a chess player be solely tactical or solely positional ?

 

Yes, but only at a lower levels of chess. 

Thanks batgirl, likesforests - yea, I shouldn't pigeonhole someone just because they were described to be a certain way. I understand better now.

sometimes the best offence is a good defence..or the other way around...

i have a thread on another site where i am trying to get insights into positional play ... but i made the mistake of asking whether posters were tacticians 'or' positionalists ... after 100+ posts there have been a few examples of tactical play, the rest is people saying there is no such thing as purely positional chess, or that positional chess is for old people, etc ... not one insight into what positional chess is or how you can improve your positional understanding

---

Id be interested if some stronger players ext described what a positional understanding is to them.

For me I think of it as more strategic based, an overall board concept that looks to secure future plans. Dealing with things like pawn structure and piece coordination.

But to ascribe exactly what is positional understanding I think is akin to asking "what is chess understanding?" 

I read somewhere that there are more tactical opportunities flowing from good positional considerations. Seems to make sense but does it ? Sounds like a self-fulfilling reasoning.

I like to think of positional as quiet and preparatory movements...in a recent game which I was quite proud of, I played a very hypermodern, quiet, and patient defense as black. White came in to attack queenside about 12-15 moves in, and I repelled it. After that, he was out of position, and I got quite tactical and went for the throat.

---

 It does make sense.  For a tactic to work it either has to create a threat of mate, material loss or POSITIONAL CONCESSION.  I solid position with no weaknesses, holes or hanging pieces will not be prone to tactics.  It is pretty obvious a position with several holes, and poor pawn structure will be more prone to tactical shots. 

 

 

This sort of brings about the fact that tactical shots are many times positional in nature.  An exchange sacrifice in the sicilian(which also brings about an attack, but which is related to the weakened pawn structure). 

I would say that people are called positional because they care more about pawn structure and space, but they utilize tactics when it gives them an edge or even a positional advantage. Tactical people would be the kind of people who use tactics to get the initiative, a devestating attack, rather than going into a winning endgame.

I'm more positional than tactical, because I'm better at defending then attacking, or that is what I think

I use tactics to get a positional edge, a winning endgame or an attack 

Well, I suppose a lot of it depends on how your mind works... although I am fairly new to chess, the "positional" stuff clicks - nevertheless, I continue to work on tactics, as I still miss things. Like forks. Recently, I played a game in the Caro Fun tourney where someone felt the Caro-Kann was claustrophobic - although I feel right at home with it.

 

Everyman have put out two interesting books- Can You Be a Positional Genius and Can You Be a Tactical Genius. Perhaps checking out one of those books (or both) at the library may shed some light...

---

I think your referring to this:

"Tactics flow from a superior position." - Bobby Fischer

"Sounds like a self-fulfilling reasoning" I don't know what you mean by that, but it does make sense what he's saying. By first getting a superior position, the tactics flow, or tactical opportunites then can come about.

The stronger a player gets in their individual, the less it matters about being positional or tactical. What starts to happen is tactics are threatened to make favorable positions for one player or the other. They maintain the threat of tactics to create tension in a position until all the mounting weaknesses implode. The funny thing is not one tactic may actually be used.

"It is bad when one thing becomes two." - Hagakure

I think it is important to remember that the styles are not mutually exclusive, rather, they coexist within chess.

To say a player is a tactical player means to me that that player first takes into consideration the dynamic possibilities of the position. A positional player to me is focused more on building a solid position, free of complication. A tactical player in my opinion is someone who is more willing to accept static inequality for dynamic compensation. A positional player is more of a slow-build player, patiently waiting for the opponents errors to add up to winning possibilities.

---

Chessroshi - you hit upon it ! I lean towards the slow-build play, patiently building up solid position. Recently I played a very tactical player and tempted to play dynamically, I neglected my positional build and responded to his style of play....leaving holes all over the place. I learnt to return to patient positional play and now he makes  little headway with me. And yes Chessroshi, as you put it he makes errors which I then exploit.

Thanks everyone for your learned opinion....I think I understand the interplay of positional and tactical far better now !

Like many young players I really have not much idea which one I lean towards. It seems I'm pretty average at both tactical and positional play. So until I become good/experienced enough I just try and play the position for what it is.. My last 2 serious games couldn't have been much more different, although both reasonably forcing in nature. I'm not particularly excelling in either area though. If anyone thinks they can make an accurate judgement on which area I'm better at it would be much appreciated..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I often wondered about this when I first started reading chess literature eight years ago. After a couple dozen books I've come to a working knowledge of what positional play is, but verbal definitions have always been confusing to entry-level players. I would say that positional play is: a manner of playing chess that seeks to improve the integrity of one's own position (such as piece placement, open lines for pieces, and the space one controls for one's own pieces while denying it to the opponent's pieces) while affording one's opponent as few opportunities as possible to improve his position. A positional emphasis does not exclude tactics; i.e. someone that plays positionally would not generally skip over an obvious tactical opportunity in order to pursue long-term plans. Rather, the positional player eschews play that creates significant complications at the price of his position's integrity. A true tactician will accept long-term weaknesses such as damage to his pawn structure or less than ideal piece placement in order to create complications, which he will attempt to manipulate to his advantage, relying on his tactical ability to be greater than his opponent's. A magnificent example of a tactician that you mentioned is the great Tal, the Magician of Riga, who would play a tactically rich move without any other justification than that he couldn't refute it! The reason this worked so marvelously for him was that his tactical ability was greater than his opponents'. Great players like this remind us that when it's all said and done, your chess is not to be measured against months of analysis for soundness, but against your opponent's play for victory. In contrast, Jose Raul Capablanca was a completely positional player who played with an iron hand, never letting the situation on the board beyond his control. Both styles of play have many brilliant proponents; the choice of which to pursue is yours. And don't ignore one for the other ;).

threat_of_mate....I particularly like what you wrote " Rather, the positional player eschews play that creates significant complications at the price of his position's integrity."....I discovered this the hard way when I played that tactical player.

Yet another late discovery was again exactly as you wrote " A true tactician will accept long-term weaknesses such as damage to his pawn structure or less than ideal piece placement in order to create complications, which he will attempt to manipulate to his advantage, relying on his tactical ability to be greater than his opponent's."....when that tactical player whom I was playing, faltered in his tactics....his position was badly neglected enough for me to pick on.

I am very appreciative of everyone's input and lively debate in this confusing area - having a better understanding of styles of play !