Same Rating, Tactics or Positional Chess?

If 2 players are approximately rated the same, for example if 2 players were rated about 1500,....if one player was weak positionally but strong tactically, the other player was the complete opposite, as in, he/she was weak tactically but strong positionally, Who do you think would win the majority of their games and why?

I'm not sure, but I guess that sub-2000 chess is 99% tactics.

whoever is in better form that day

probably the one whos better at tactics, depending on if the person whos better at tactics knows to avoid more positional openings. if they play like ruys or something similar every game then it would probably be closer. but also just in general i think being good at tactics will get you further then being good positionally.

(this coming from someone who never plays the ruy and rarely plays into the ruy so maybe im wrong about the ruy being more positional but i think it is or at least compared to what i play which is the evans gambit, d4 against two knights defense, modern scandinavian, and budapest gambit)

the one that was strong tactically, because they would find tactics to win pieces that their opponent did not find.

If you put your pieces on good squares then the tactics almost automatically appear.  The positional player will get the pieces on good squares but will miss some of the tactics.  The tactical player will not have as many tactical opportunities but will be more likely to see the ones that do arise.

Call it even.

Probably who's in better form, but if they're playing the exact same level... well, that would be a matter of time control.

A game in a longer time control would benefit the positional player -- it's easier to see tactics given more time, so that weakness isn't that much of a deficiency given you think through all your moves.

A game in a shorter time control would benefit the tactical player -- less time, more tactics. At least that's my thoughts on it.

Whoever makes the second to last mistake most often.  

Personally, I would say that tactics are definitely more useful sub-2200.  Most intermediate or beginner players have very little knowledge of positional chess and most, including myself, rely on tactics to win the game. However, stronger players usually can see through the tactics which probably makes positional play more important at a higher level. I also agree with ninjaswat about time control, even professional players fall for tactics under time pressure.

I'm playing at the 1500 level and I think you picked an excellent cut-off point.  At lower ratings tactical skills will determine the winner, but around 1500 positional understanding becomes more relevant.

It gets a lot harder to just outplay your opponent tactically, though the tactical player probably still has the advantage. But it's still not all tactics. My experience against stronger players is that when we both play well, their moves are a tiny bit better. Slowly their position gets stronger while mine gets worse. If they keep up the pressure, I'm more likely to eventually make a tactical blunder. But I would argue that the ultimate reason they are better is because they have a better positional understanding, not my lack of tactical skills.  

The hypothetical that one player is great at tactics and bad at positional play while the other player has the opposite skills doesn't exist, I think. You won't get to 1500 on positional play alone. You first need to develop tactical skills and once that is no longer enough, you need to develop a better positional understanding.

The tactician would win.

Somebody once said along the lines of  “tactics flow from superior positions”.

@Duckfest I agree and and can relate by being in the same player category.

Recently, I have been working hard on my positional play and have a new appreciation for chess. It’s laughable that you can build up a +2 position on the evaluation bar going into the middle game with no minor piece trades and even a pawn down in certain lines.

A solid positional player has an extra avenue to win by squeezing and limiting his opponents counter play.

You are right! One who finds the tactics will simply win at this level. If someone's positional understanding is so sound, I don't think he will stay below 2000 mark. 

That's an interesting question, hmm.

I think it would depend on the type of middlegame position they reach. Maybe it's useful to list strengths and weaknesses.

Strong tactically at 1500 doesn't mean you're doing genius sacrifices like Tal. It probably means you're very consistent at spotting 1-2 move combos that the opponent might miss. This player is weak positionally, so they don't have very active pieces. After castling they'll try to put on pressure with just 2, maybe 3 pieces, and wait for a mistake. They tend to win short games and lose long games because endgames have few tactics.

Strong positionally at 1500 doesn't mean you're Karpov, it probably means you tend to avoid initiating captures, and tend to move your least active pieces. You win because you eventually put a rook on the 7th or knight on the 6th and after invading with multiple pieces you win material. You tend to lose short games because of simple tactical oversights, and your wins are longer than average.

Small note, I'm assuming both are about equal strategically. (Strategy is long term while positional play is short term.) So for example an opposite side castling game, both players will know to attack, and the positional player's attack will be better since they'll have the more active pieces... but their calculation will be worse, so they might blunder a piece in front of the opponent's king and then lose because they have less material... I'd call that game a tossup... and yeah, in general I think it just depends on who is having a good day.

A tactician with bad pieces may not have any tactics.

The question is tricky because one player is not bad at tactics, they're merely bad compared to the average 1500.

@ninjaswat pointing out time control is an interesting idea.

lol, I can imagine how it might be the opposite of what people think...

Opposite side castling tends to involve a longer build up... so positional player wins due to better pieces and easy to find tactics. If they lose it's because of an error during their attack and the defender wins material.

Same side castling in a closed position typically means both sides have a healthy structure (no isolated pawns for example) and closed lines... meaning there is no obvious way for the positional player to improve their pieces (they would have to be a good strategist). Since their strength is nullified, when the position finally does open, the tactical player will have the advantage.

Open position tactical player has advantage.

Semi open position both players will have chances.

Interesting feedback thus far. I'll elaborate a little (but not entirely) why I created this thread. This came out of a friendly "discussion" (okay, more like friendly argument where it is about the issue and not each other) with me and a chess.com friend of mine (they wanted to be kept anonymous as this is about the hypothetical and not us, so I will respect that and keep them unnamed). 

Anyway, they believed that the tactical player would win more often. I looked at it differently. I reasoned that if BOTH players are rated 1500 then they should both win roughly the same frequency against each other because they are both the same rating (and ability). 

In this hypothetical, player A (1500 level) is better than Player B (1500 level) tactically, but they have less positional ability. Conversely Player B is worse than Player A tactically, but they have more positional ability. Both sides are equally "good" or "bad" in strengths, but both are 1500. I reasoned that rating didn't matter much here because if they are both the same rating 1500 vs 1500, 2000 vs 2000, or 2500 vs 2500 etc., then both will win or lose equally (on average) assuming that both as accurately at such rating.

This has been an interesting thread to hear everyone's opinions so far though

In longer time controls the one who excels at positional play should win more games (not to say they wouldn't lose). In shorter TCs the tactical player should have the edge.

You can be masterful tactician if you are positionally lost since move 10 and have no counterplay.

Conversly you can understand all the positional concepts and binds if you blunder a tactical sequence which traps your piece(s) or queen or leads to checkmate.

In longer time control the positional player would have the time needed to calculate some of the tactical nuances. In shorter they wouldn't hence why they would lose in the shorter more.

Yes, on average a 1500 will score 50% against other 1500s... but that doesn't mean they'll score 50% against each individual 1500. Sometimes players will be an easy or hard matchup...

... but I don't think those matches always go one way... maybe I'm wrong.

By the way if you'd said strategy, then I'd say the tactical player wins... because being weak tactically but strong strategically is sort of meaningless... but positional and tactical are two sides of the same coin. Someone who is bad positionally isn't very good at having active pieces... and without active pieces you wont have tactics... so it's kind of hard to answer, IMO.