Positional=Likes Closed Positions, Likes Maneuvering
Tactical=Likes Open Positions, Likes Attacking
Sorry if this sounds really noobish/dumb but......
Sort:
Dare Dare took a seemingly difficult question and made it easy. Drat. :(
How about this? (for amateur players only)
Tactical player = player confident in their tactics.
Positional player = player who tries to keep the position closed out of fear that tactics may appear.
Note neither player knows how to play positionally 
Players under 2600 don't have a style; they have a collection of weaknesses. -Some GM, I think
FM Schiller said it.
Schiller should speak for himself. His poor play shouldn't reflect on all of us, too.
waffllemaster wrote:
How about this? (for amateur players only)
Tactical player = player confident in their tactics.
Positional player = player who tries to keep the position closed out of fear that tactics may appear.
Note neither player knows how to play positionally
lol that's about the size of it
If you think you're a tactical player, you're impatient.
If you think you're a positional player, you're a coward.
I don't see a need for a dichotomy, everyone should play sound positional chess, and play a tactical blow if they have one so long as they get a positional or material edge afterward. I played this guy who saced a knight on e5 and I took with the rook and he tried chasing it with his f-pawn, if I retreated I'd lose a knight for a pawn, but knowing that two minors are worth more than one rook I exchanged rook for bishop on g5 and destroyed his pawn structure. This was a casual OTB and I really regret not writing it down.
My version:
Tactical players like open position, sacrifices, and attack to the K.
Positional players like closed position, controling some squares without losing tempo or pieces, don't attack the king directly, but just wait for opponent mistake. I don't call it blunder, it is just a weak move trying to escape from very tight space.
Here I give an example of positional play. I just wait and wait and wait till the queen move to the other side, then you know checkmate. I don't sacrifice my pieces, instead I take opponent pieces.
On move 26 I already establish good position with my pawn and bishop. See I wait just moving pieces around trying to confuse my opponent. Then at the right moment, my opponent without knowing it, a strong attack on move 33. h5.
I hope you get the idea.
Scottrf wrote:
If you think you're a tactial player, you're impatient.
If you think you're a positional player, you're a coward.
+1
You could just as easily call that a tactical game the way you pushed the h pawn to open the king.
In reality they are meaningless terms. A game can't be positional or tactical, it's always both.
That sounds like a new thread, Scott!
In my game, see #13, tactical players might have done differently. Maybe they will sacrifice rook for bishop, pushing g and h pawn etc. But I like positional and very patient play.
Scottrf wrote:
You could just as easily call that a tactical game the way you pushed the h pawn to open the king.
In reality they are meaningless terms. A game can't be positional or tactical, it's always both.
But I push it at a very slow pace, concerning the timing. I wait for the Q to go to the other side. And my K is well protected.
How do you know if your a positional player or tactical player?