Same Rating, Tactics or Positional Chess?

Meh, I don't think anyone is "stupid" @Ultimate-trashtalker just because of their rating. Rating is only an estimate of past performance and doesn't take into account potential or their improvement plans etc.

Interesting, I dont think equal ratings means they would score 50/50. Some people with very similar ratings have scores of like 90/10 because of style, psyhological, or opening difference. So I can't tell forsure who would win between the positional and tactical player, but it wouldn't surprise me if it is a blowout for one of the 2 players, as the difference in style could create a big imbalance that suddenly favors one of the players. The only way to determine who, is to make them face off

The tactical player will win the majority of the time. 

Kaiba, it is possible that two players of the same rating may not have even chances if they challenge each other as being a tactician or a positional player may give one player an edge in dealing with the other. In physics, there are two different concepts called speed and acceleration. Two objects having the same speed may not have the same acceleration. And you have said correctly that rating is just a record of past performance and may not tell anything about potentials and improvements. For a 1500-rated player, he or she will be more likely to get improvements if they work on tactics more. We are analyzing the potentials of the two players, while rating is never a fixed thing.

In practical sense yes, but in this hypothetical we had the rating was "fixed." Both players are indeed 1500 and of equal ability...the confounding variable is a slight preference and higher ability for tactics with Player A and and equal slight preference and higher ability with Player B for positional chess. All else equal (ceteris paribus), shouldn't both players win roughly the same amount against each other, by definition of fixed ratings being equal?

This was my perspective. Of course, "real players" have non-fixed ratings and other variables at play, but this was the core of the argument I was trying to present.

The great chess writer and teacher C.J. Purdy wrote: "to a good position player who is not also a master of tactics, chess is a long succession of heartbreaks.".

That's me! Literally the story of my chess life! xD

Now that I understand, Kaiba: this question is actually a tricky brain teaser!

If you believe this then why?

But you have to consider the possibility that one tactic, or even an unsound sacrifice, could well muddy the positional player's thoughts.

I tend to skew towards the tactician side because of this, but then again on average I would expect the result to be dead even (50/50).

This is actually made more challenging by the fact that good positional players are also decent at tactics.

If it's a game involving Chess 960, the tactician will probably prevail.

Tactics are more important but the score would be still even as they are both 1500 players... It's a bit like asking what's heavier 1kg of iron or 1kg of feathers...

Lovely. Which book?

I'm going to have to do some research on that. I read it several years ago and it made a big impression.

No worries... I have heard about Purdy often, but never read one of his books...

I disagree with this because at the lower levels (1500 is considered lower level, although the post wasn't about anyone being 1500 or any rating for that matter, the rating of 1500 was just being used as an example, read the post more closely folks!), however, at the rating of 1500, tactical skill/ability is way more important then strategic and even positional Chess.  Therefore if the positionally skilled 1500 rated player is making tactical errors left and right, he'll simply lose all his pieces to the tactically skilled 1500 player, it's hard to win when you're down alot of material (which is exactly what will happen to a tactically weak player, no matter how "good" his position is) and certainly a 1500 rated player is competent enough to close out an endgame or two with a lone Queen and/or 2 rooks or even 1 rook..

@Chesslover0_0 Now THAT wording I can agree with! In this hypothetical, 1500 was just an example number, but my "issue" with this was that if the players rating/ability was "fixed" and in this case both should win about the same frequency against each other by definition of their ratings. If one players wins more against the other, then they should be higher rated so it is like @Jenium phrased it, "It's a bit like asking what's heavier 1kg of iron or 1kg of feathers"

However, I like the wording in your post here @Chesslover0_0 because yes I agree that at 1500 level tactics are generally easier to take advantage of as positional errors at this level are less likely to be game-decisive. 

Of course 1500 vs 1500 was just the sample rating. What about two GMs both at 2700 rating? The 2700 vs 2700 same scenario should have tactical and positional knowledge to exploit enough to convert into a win, so I'd believe that they would win roughly the same amount against each other (IF ratings were fixed at this level). 

I guess this hypothetical indirectly gets at an intriguing side-argument that a flaw in positional chess is less exploitable until a higher level where the competition seems to take advantage of this more consistently. What rating is this threshold? Probably around 1600-1800 chess.com range I'd estimate, so by this logic, yes I suppose in practical chess with a 1500 player versus another 1500 player (ratings NOT fixed, but merely just same rating during this game), then yeah the tactically better player might very well win more and increase their rating quicker. This isn't to say tactics are necessarily "better" but it is just something more tangible around this rating range. 

Very cool discussion which has come out of this hypothetical presented!

j

It depends on what position the game heads into. Into tactical ocean, the better tactical player wins and when the game gets positional, the better strategic positional player wins. So the tactical player should go for opening that are sharp and full of tactics while the positional player should go for positions that are less tactical and more positional