Tactical Vs Positional Players
Sort:
B1ZMARK noted.
playonlinesecretly1 interesting….
NervesofButter do you have any site names?
are tactical players more trying to kill the enemy king meanwhile positional players are more defensive and just try to capitalize on their enemy's mistakes?
Apr 4, 2022
0
#27
There needs to be a balance between both. If you focus too much on positional advantage and strategic manoeuvre, then you might miss crucial tactical moments that could have given you a win-win situation. Therefore, both are equally important. I have barely noticed tactical issues from 1800+ players. Almost all of them are pretty solid. Only the positional advantages and exploitation of strategical weaknesses can provide victory.
Vincidroid I agree there needs to be a healthy balance
Here's an alternative/interesting way of comparing tactical players to positional players-----the old Aesop's fables of the tortoise and the hare, with the latter representing tactical players and the former symbolizing positional players...
wizardKM interesting way to put it, but relatively true
Apr 4, 2022
0
#31
wizardKM wrote:
Here's an alternative/interesting way of comparing tactical players to positional players-----the old Aesop's fables of the tortoise and the hare, with the latter representing tactical players and the former symbolizing positional players...
I have to disagree.
Hikaru, for example, is a very positional player. But those who don't realize this think that he's only tactical.
He tends to squeeze his opponents, taking away their good squares, clamping down on good squares for himself. He moves fast and aggressively, restricting his opponent's mobility, while enhancing the mobility of his own pieces.
Siezing files and diagonals. Invading with his knights. Storming forward with his pawns.
This leaves his opponents with few good options, and they often stumble into tactical blunders, as a direct result of all the positional pressure.
So like I said in an earlier post: positional players tend to win by the small accumulation of advantages throughout the game and then crush their opponents. Your example of Hikaru clamping down on squares and enhancing his mobility. This leads then to stumble into tactical blunders. So tactics flow from his positional play which leads to a superior position. Correct?
Apr 4, 2022
0
#33
Interesting topic. I like how you phrased your question.
According to Wikipedia: In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves that limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted with strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less constrained in responding.
Technically, this might be accurate. Though I tend to look at it a little more simplistically: Tactics is going for short term gains. A beginner can spot when there is an opportunity to play an aggressive move that wins material (e.g. forking a Queen and Rook with a Knight) and thus successfully play a tactic. Failing to spot your opponents tactic (e.g. occasionally hanging a minor piece) would be a tactical mistake or a tactical blunder.
A slightly more advanced player can spot a tactic a few moves in advance, initiating a tactical sequence. However, a more advanced opponent should be able to spot this threat and defend accordingly. In order to successfully play a tactic against a more advanced player you need to play more advanced sequences, etc. Playing moves to gain material in the short run is playing tactical, playing moves that prevent this are as well. Against good players, simple tactical moves are useless, because they will see them coming (like you, playing to prevent tactics). As you start facing better opponents, you need to plan further ahead, shifting your play from simply looking for attacks to more strategic and positional play, where you strive to position your pieces as best as you can to create future tactics.
There is nothing wrong with strategic positional play. I think most players prefer to win games with tactics, because that's probably easier. Until that no longer works. As they play against stronger and stronger opponents, they will adjust their play accordingly. Over time, they will play more positional too. In the meantime: keep in mind that being able to spot tactics for yourself and your opponent is important enough not to ignore.
Also, you also provided me with the opportunity to share my favorite chess quote:
“Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.”
― Savielly Tartakower
Jalex13 wrote:
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?
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?
Have you and I just played each other? If so, then what am I?
Apr 4, 2022
0
#35
Jalex13 wrote:
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.
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.
I see tactics and tactical awareness as the chess equivalent to that killer mentality you see in a boxer or ufc fighter: You either have it or you don't, and if you don't then you're not getting it. There's no improving it.
I'm not saying people can't play better, but rather that they're improving their opening or endgame knowledge or some other area of play and attributing it to improving their tactics when that's not the case.
Duckfest thank you for your very detailed response
Optimissed is that a trick question?
Wattagyt95 I’m not sure I understand what your trying to say
Apr 4, 2022
0
#39
Jalex13 wrote:
Wattagyt95 I’m not sure I understand what your trying to say
What bit don't you get?
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?
They are probably not practicing them properly.
GM Axel Smith notes in his book 'Pump up your rating' that tactics on chess.com and other chess websites are not sorted in any sort of order. This makes learning them difficult because tactical themes are not properly presented and practiced, and the user is likely to forget them the next time a similar theme pops up.