It is probably 50/50 because elo is a good predictor of future performance.
Now remember: bad positional judgement kills slowly while bad tactics kill almost instantly.
Same Rating, Tactics or Positional Chess?
Sort:
Below 2000 or even more 99% of your chess strength is tactics. The rest is blatant dogmatism, wishful thinking and gaslighting.
Colin20G wrote:
Below 2000 or even more 99% of your chess strength is tactics. The rest is blatant dogmatism, wishful thinking and gaslighting.
Pretty much, based on my research, that and Richard Teichmann's famous "Chess is 99% tactics' quote, an exaggeration but at the Class level, Tactics are very important, more important then strategic Chess!
Colin20G wrote:
Below 2000 or even more 99% of your chess strength is tactics. The rest is blatant dogmatism, wishful thinking and gaslighting.
2000 what? OTB? Online blitz? Most of my blitz games are decided by tactics, and I'm around 2100 blitz. I'm 1850 OTB though and rarely blunder tactics, though I do miscalculate sometimes, and the majority of my games are decided by strategical mistakes.
this is old but interesting .do u think i makes sents that i depends on if the tactic guy i knows the opening well? if the positional dude plays an uncommon opening he will likely have a ~2 points higher on the eval bar and i will be difficult to get back?
KeSetoKaiba wrote:
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?
Thats literally an impossible scenario. You cant be strong player and be weak in either positional or tactical play.
If you are a strong player, you certainly can have an own style and can have a focus in either tactics or position, but you have to have a good graps of the other area, too, otherwise you cant be brilliant in the other area either. Tactics without positional play, well you wont get attack chances then, will you. Positional play without tactics, well you'll fall prey to your blunders.
Adjusting the question for realism doesnt help. If the primarily tactical player gets a tactical position, he will on average dominate the positional player, and vice versa. So it comes down to the question how good either side is in getting a position to their liking.
1500 is not a strong player. I've seen 1500s such as KeSotaKaiba described (granted there were a lot more tactical than strategic 1500s).
I've seen 500s with the strategic understanding of a 1200 but the tactical skill of a 300.
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?
The positional player because at 1500, they are not strong enough to be tactically very good.