Tactical Vs Positional Players

Admittedly, I haven’t been playing chess for that long, and have not the experience of many people who are often in the forums. But I have observed that there appear to be mainly 2 types of playing styles: tactical and positional. Tactical players seem to be the vast majority of players, they’re aggressive, skillful and precise players who have the talent or prospects of being players with great ability to calculate lines and such things. The minority, positional players are slower more balanced players who seem to win the game by a small accumulation of advantages and finally crush their opponents in the end.

Now everyday there are beginners and inexperienced players who enter the forums wanting advice on how to improve. We see the typical advice: “tactics, longer time controls, blunder checks” etc. But some players have expressed that practicing tactics is not helping them. So could it be that the people giving advice on the forums are not catering to people who have a potentially different playing style? Of course, tactics are essential in chess, but is it always something that everyone should focus on?

If you're under 1200 then it doesn't matter about style. Tactics are everything. Once you get to about 1800 then style starts to matter, and if you are a positional player then you need to feed your strength and study positional themes and stuff. But for the beginners, tactics needs to be their main focus in terms of improvement. 

I’m not 1800 and have already gained a positional style of play. I rarely lose by tactics, rather by my own stupid blunders. Bobby Fischer said “tactics flow from superior position”. I think my positional play leaves no room for players at my level to be tactical against me.

Blunders are almost always tactical. You're using the word 'tactics' in too narrow a sense. Any move sequence that wins material is a tactical operation. If you studied tactics more you probably wouldn't be blundering quite so much.

Can you also give me a detailed explanation of what exactly is a tactic? A tactical sequence? I do puzzles a couple times a week on chess tempo.com and one of the puzzles was just to capture an unprotected knight. Is this considered a tactic? I occasionally will hang a minor piece. Is this kind of blunder considered a tactical error? How broad can the term tactics be utilized then? Sorry for so many questions

If possible, can you please analyze one of my recent games and point out the areas that I may have used tactics. I’m a visual learner so that would be greatly appreciated

For beginners and inexperienced players, I believe that working on tactics first will really help them. It helped me a lot by solving chess problems involving mate in 2 or more moves when I was a beginner. Most of the time, games are won when players miss tactical threats (losing a piece or even get mated because they did not see these threats). Only when they gain experience that they can work on other aspects of the game such as openings, middle game, and ending. You were right when you said there are two types of players: tactical and positional. But I believe that most positional players have gained skill first by studying tactics. You cannot win a game by positional means when in the opening or middle game you have a losing position because you miss those simple tactics.

I've looked at a few of your games and it seems to me like you struggle most with imbalances during the endgame. The late middlegame is all about maintaining passed pawns and focusing on pawn structure. Try to imagine a board without pieces and see how well you'd play with just your pawns to evaluate a better pawn positioning. It will help you a lot in the future to have nicely placed pawns along with supportive pieces. 1400+ is all about understanding pawn structure and tactics. Every move you make affects a multitude of different pieces. Make sure when playing an opening you acknowledge how you're affecting your pawns.

ChessEnthusiast48 I understand what your saying. But for me….until about a month ago, all I have done is increase my understanding of positional ideas. Are you sure that tactics are always the best way for everyone?

triqatschool your definitely right. Late middle game and early endgame are my biggest weakness in chess. Please, is possible, share some videos, free books, lessons, articles or other similar items that you think would be helpful for improving in this aspect.

Open Sicilians, be they dragons or otherwise, require tactical precision. From what I've seen from your games, you absolutely need to work on your tactics. Buy a tactical training book (Palliser has done some excellent ones) - it will serve you well for the rest of your chess playing days.

Oh yeah I tried the Sicilian and absolutely failed. I definitely need to work on that. Thank you very much

Jeremy SIlman is a profound chess International Master, I recommend any of his books, but "Silman's Complete Endgame Course" is a very good start. If you're looking more for videos I suggest somebody like GothamChess on youtube. Also chess.com comes with lots of free lessons. A non-member can use one a day, which is actually helpful as to not overload information. Try practicing some lessons daily or going to puzzles and using the puzzles filter for pawn structure or endgames.

In one of those games I found a hole in my opponents position. As a positional player I immediately made knight moves in order to secure a position in it. I’m definitely going to put more emphasis into tactics. Thanks everyone for your help.

I found the chess.com lessons too short and simple and this hard to retain to memory. But I’ll give it another go.

What I am saying is that only when you have gained skill in tactics then you can work on positional ideas. Lots of games were lost when people overlook tactics. I am not saying tactics is the best for everyone. Both tactical and positional ideas are important. For me, tactics first, then positional. I am not sure if everyone agrees, but it worked for me.

Both tactical vision and positional understanding are important.

Though it's true that, at the lower levels, tactical blunders have more of an impact than positional knowledge.

Properly handling the dynamics between different pawn structures and piece imbalances (positional play) is less crucial when both players are still hanging pawns and pieces, due to tactical mistakes.

So yes, ideally, you want to excel at both. But tactics tend to be more vital at lower levels. Positional knowledge is less crucial at lower levels, but it becomes more and more necessary the higher you climb.

I'd say at the highest levels (master level and up), the values flip: positional understanding becomes more important than tactics.

Hi.

I'm far from being an expert, in the sense that I don't have a high ELO even if I play since I was a very young boy (I'm 52 now). I'll try to give anyway my view about your questions/doubts.

Q: a detailed explanation of what exactly is a tactic

A: A tactic is one or more moves that give body to an idea, or in other words that puts an high-level plan into material practice. To better understand, an example of "strategy" is "I have in some way to open lines in the center", while a tactic related to that is "pawn c takes d4".

Q: A tactical sequence?

A: A tactical sequence is precise sequence of moves that (hopefully) reach the goal that we had created for ourselves (hoping or assuming that goal/aim is the correct one  ).

"I do puzzles a couple times a week on chess tempo.com.." I have myself not much time currently, but a good habit would be to resolve puzzles every single day.

Q: and one of the puzzles was just to capture an unprotected knight. Is this considered a tactic?

A: Yes it is. In other words, you'll never find a puzzle that you solve using _only_ strategy and _no_tactics. The moment you move a piece, you're exercising tactics. It is not by coincidence that puzzles are also called "tactics", they're not called "strategies". I don't mean that tactics is more important that strategy. You won't win a single game if have 100% only tactics or 100% only strategy. You need to have both.

Q: I occasionally will hang a minor piece. Is this kind of blunder considered a tactical error?

A: I would not consider a blunder like this a tactical error. A tactical error is (see above) a sequence that you embark on, to get to your goal. Assume you're calculating a variation, during which you and your opponent execute two captures each. At the end of the sequence, you discover, sorry for you, that your opponent can move also a bishop which was in the corner of the board and so he executes a third capture, and lose a piece. This is a tactical error.

In another scenario, you are driving your battle on the queenside, and are manouvering brilliantly thru a tactical sequence that will gain the opponent's queen. You reach the goal, eventually, but forget that one move after, your opponent can capture a pawn on the kingside - an area that you were not paying attention to. This is the blunder, of course is part of tactics (yur opponent's one!) but I would not consider it strictly a tactical error.

Hope this helps, and hope I haven't posted too many nonesenses :-) 

 

 

 

Stil1 thank you for your knowledge. ChessEnthusiast understood, thank you very much

agatti your information is very good. Thank you very much for answering those questions. Not nonsense at all.