Positional vs. Tactical Chess

In chess there is one overriding principle:

Winning chess is the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

This is so because pawns are the only ones that cannot move backwards.

At the end of correct positional(strategic) plans which are the limbs and branches are the tactics which are the leaves.

I look at it this way, If you can't get out of bed each day and atleast give one person a hard time, just for the fun of it, you might as well stay in bed, maybe you'll have better luck there....

What exactly is the distinction between"positional chess" and "tactical chess"?

Is it possible to illustrate exactly what "positional chess" and "tactical chess is all about?

Take this last 10 moves from the game Tal-Leonov after 14.fxe5 Nh7

 Was there "positional chess" in that game? "Tactical Chess"?  If both were present what were the moves that are "positional chess" and moves that are "tactical chess"?  Or are all those 10 moves just "tactical".

What is very noticeable in that game is that Tal deliberately played a theoretical bad move of bringing the N to the side of the board with 2.Na3. And more noticeable is the fact that this very N coming from b1 is responsible for the destruction of Black's Kingside with 8.Nf6+

Is that not "positional chess"? That N could not have travelled to the squares e3, g4, and ultimately to f6 if Tal played 2.Nd2 (a move that general chess theory recommends).

Then there is the move 1.Qh5.  That Q at h5 made the move 5.Rf6 possible because 5...gxf6 6.exf6 Nxf6 7.Qxh6 Ne5 8.Bxe5 dxe5 9.Ng4 f5 10.Nf6+ and 11.Nxe8 is winning for White.

Although this looks "tactical chess" because it involved an attack on Black's K the thing that one needs to consider is the "preparation" or "positioning" of the pieces to make "tactics" work. 

Does that Tal game contain "positional" as well as "tactical" chess? It is a concrete example of what Perigranari said in Comment #3 - "while your positional knowledge will help you get your pieces in the right places eariler to even be able to exploit those holes your opponent leaves."

Indeed "get your pieces in the right places" as Peregrinari opined.

Surely there must be other concrete examples that would show both "positional" and "tactical" chess.

I rececently “skimmed” through the book “Rapid Chess Improvement” by de la Maza.  From the little bit that I read, the author claims that one should ignore positional concepts until you are rated around 2000 and only focus on tactics.

I think by this time we are all bored to tears by the aged-old discussion between Silman’s books and de la Maza’s book, and I am not interested in discussing which is better at all.  I’m busy studying a bit of positional chess as well as a tactics.

But consider the following game situation.  I see a good support square for my knight.  No pawns can attack the knight on that particular square, and it might cause problems for my opponent later on in the game.  I don’t know as of yet what particular problems it will cause, all I know at that point is that the knight will be roosting on, say, the sixth rank, controlling a lot of squares in my enemy’s camp.  I got space on my queen-side of the board and decide to mobilise the rest of my pieces on that particular side.  I would assume that the little bit of positional knowledge I have told me this.

My opponent makes a move, and I realize that he is hanging a pawn.  A two-move tactic will ensure me being a pawn up.  I would assume that the little bit of tactical knowledge I possess, enabled me to spot and calculate the solution.  I proceed to take the pawn, and now continue with my plan to get my knight it’s ideal square.

Was I playing positional chess or tactical chess?  Or is true positional chess something that exists only at a really high level of chess?

Sometimes I will make moves that will simply push my opponent back, cramping his space, and sometimes, if I’m lucky, they blunder based on their lack of space, or because they can’t move a knight or a bishop because it is blocked.  Have I won the game because I’m positionally better than my opponent, or tactically superior?

I would think that if I only studied tactics I would have never placed my knight on the sixth rank.  Also, I would assume that if I only focused on positional chess, my opponent would rip through me like a chainsaw, eating whatever pieces I’m either hanging, or is pinned.

I would like to hear some opinons on this.

I don't think there's any such thing as positional chess. The manuevering and square control characteristic of positional chess as its called is nothing but tactical manuevering. Manuevering and control of squares, etc is tactical. A lot of chess players like Silman like to distinguish slow tactics from combinations but its all tactics. What guys like Silman call positional play is in reality tactical manuevering and setting your opponent up for tactics but cutting supply lines or dynamiting a bridge, choosing the time and place of the battle is the most important tactic. There's an old saying among soldiers that they'd rather retrat a yard than advance an inch. Terrain is most important tactical consideration. Positional chess is just an obtuse way of saying tactical manuevering.

I believe the relationship is that a good position creates more tactical opportunities. 

I have to assume you have your subscription of "Weed and Chess".

I can not even count the number of times i won a game due a positional move when i could not find a tactical move. I love you type of guys in a game.

Hey play those guys like Silman and tell him how he should have written his books and put your name on the front of it IM Ron-Weasley. Your luck most of chess.com is going to sleep right now else you take a serios hit for some of your comments.

Was your "positional" move moving part of your army? If you manuevered any part of your army you used a tactic. You think digging a foxhole is a positional manuever the infantryman makes? Its tactical so that he doesn't get his head blown off so fast when the shooting starts. Again, "positional move" is just an obtuse word people use for a tactic with no immediate payoff. Every pawn and piece move is by definition tactical. Your armies movements are purely tactical. Use a dictionary.

So all the great GMs way before your time have no idea idea what postitinal play is? Including the writers of articles on this site?  lol.

Hey i dare you go their articles on postional play at chess.com

All of us can use a good laugh!

I fiured you must be getting your info the books at the Dollar Store. So i took the liberty of looking it up and not even they have anything on the nonsense your saying now.

So you must have found a 50 cent book store! And got your chess book half off.

Those writers have a deep and profound understanding of chess. What they lack is an understanding of the word tactical. My argument is purely semantic. I'm pointing out how assinine it is to call a chess move non-tactical. What a lot of brilliant chess authors lack is a basic understanding of the English language and the definition of words in it.

No, the unabridged Random House dictionary.

If chess writers would do the same they wouldn't get their readers misusing common words, like tactic.

Hahahahahaha

I  started laughing so hard   and still laughing as i type this.

How can win an arguement that you are winning for me. This is troubling right now.

Let us not forget when say Those writers he is including IM Silman at the top of .... his list. Hey i am going to get my refund on all my book from those writers including Silman because they lack the understanding of some terms in chess!!!       

Instead of laughing just consider for a moment if what I'm communicating is true or not.

According to the Random House Unabridged dictionary a tactic can be defined as "a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result." 

Therefore if we are using the correct definition of tactic a chess move must be tactical.

What do you find difficult to understand about this? Did you think tactics were merely combinations?

No way you read any of Silman's books to say thay he is wrong about something.

Imbalances, imbalances and imbalaces. Come back to us when you finished studying that and say what you said about Silman again.

Has Random House published an award winning chess book? That would be a ..... big fat NO.

Again take this to one of the articles on chess.com about positional play written by a GM. I think ... i know we will love the tactics they use to straighten you out about the difference between Tactical Chess and Postitional Chess.