Simple vs Complex positions

Hi,

From what I understand simple positions are known as "quiet" positions where there is not much activity and tactical engagement between the pieces etc. Analytical / complex positions are those positions that are tactical rich and are able to produce combinations.

Are my definitions correct? And also how do you determine a position that can be defined either way? Like is there a method or questions that can be asked to help?

Thanks.

Just try to figure that out by the general features of the position: is the pawn structure closed? How many open files are there? How dangerous and co-ordinated are both side's pieces? etc.

Simple = non-tactical and complex = tactical isn't completely accurate.

The definition you give would fit better with "wild complications."  Tactical positions can be simple (like when a beginner is struggling with a pin or fork), and strategic, maneuvering positions can be complex and require a lot of calculation (like an endgame or an attack on the king).

It would be hard to give an example of a position that could be understood either way because your definitions are opposites ("not much activity" vs "can produce combinations")

An attack on the king is a good example of a position that can be both analytical/tactical and at the same time maneuvering and positional.  Because the relative value of pieces fluctuate during an attack (sacrifices, key defenders, key attackers, etc) it's positional and it's tactical/analytical because to finish it often requires a combination based on concrete lines.

thanks for the replies westy and orangehonda.

0rangehonda would it be better to define them in modes of thinking? For example simple positions are those positions where not much calculation is needed and time is better spent thinking intuitively where as complex positions are "concrete" in nature and require exact forsight (calculation). Orangehonda can I also discover your definitions if I may?

Cheers.

That's not a bad way to see it -- it's unlikely that we're thinking of different things, just using different words.  My main difference is how I define complex.

Endgames for example often have positions that require what you might call intuitive play.  Play based not so much on calculation as evaluating key features correctly.  These positions are none-the-less very complex and unforgiving (one slip can be the difference between win/loss/draw) the way you would think of tactics as being unforgiving.

Also, opposite side castling with mutual attacks can be very complex, but the build up before lines are opened doesn't lend itself to calculation, you have to know positionally (and maybe intuitively) how to set up your pieces for the attack.  After the attack(s) begin, you have to calculate a lot, but before then understanding/experience is more valuable than deep calculations.

Other quiet positions are very forgiving, and there is no clear best move and many different tries are reasonable.

I do agree though that different positions require different types of thinking.  Some require you to look at a lot of concrete lines with calculation, while some positions calculation is more or less useless and positional play is required.  Calculation is often required in open and tactical positions, while positional play is often found in closed positions and endgames.

thanks orangehonda it seems clear now.

For the best definition of "simple positions" in front of "complicated positions" you can refer to Kotov description in book Volume II of "Shakhmatnoe nasledia Alkhina, 1982"

is there a way to quantify complexity in a position? For eg, simply counting pieces and pawns can be one way to do it but is far from the complete picture.

Hi hello ....

hello

Hi...