Tactical Vs Positional Players
Sort:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/1-d4-or-1-e4 this forum got me wondering about this topic. In addition to another post earlier in the week where someone mentioned that tactical puzzles were not helping them improve
Apr 4, 2022
0
#42
NervesofButter wrote:
"Killer mentality" has nothing to do with tactics or strategy. If the 99% that love to label themselves "aggressive", "tactical" and whatever else they use, would lose the labels and seriously work on improving. The improvement would come. But as long as we have chess players that barely now how the pieces move, and insist on labeling themselves something they have no idea about? The improvement will stall.
When I say "killer mentality", what I mean is that you'll never see a professional boxer or fighter who doesn't like to hurt someone. You can't train someone who hates violence to become a fighter, you can show them how to punch and kick and whatever but they just don't have it in them.
And it's the same with tactical awareness in chess. Unless you have that natural aptitude to see and react to tactical positions then you just can't improve tactically. You can be shown what to look for, but unless you have that natural aptitude you won't be able to apply that to an actual game.
Wattaguy95 I believe anyone who puts in effort and is taught efficiently can become proficient at something. Maybe not as good as a player with a natural talent or ability. In fact I don’t believe I have a naturally tactical eye. But with some puzzle training I can definitely improve my vision.
so tactical players are about big moves to quickly capture the king meanwhile positional player slowly capture the king with a bunch of smaller moves over the course of the match? Also I have a question how do you post pictures in forums since I want to post donkey kong country pics in my own thread
Apr 4, 2022
0
#45
Wattaguy95 wrote:
When I say "killer mentality", what I mean is that you'll never see a professional boxer or fighter who doesn't like to hurt someone. You can't train someone who hates violence to become a fighter, you can show them how to punch and kick and whatever but they just don't have it in them.
And it's the same with tactical awareness in chess. Unless you have that natural aptitude to see and react to tactical positions then you just can't improve tactically. You can be shown what to look for, but unless you have that natural aptitude you won't be able to apply that to an actual game.
I believe this to be not true. Spotting tactics, especially tactics that you can play yourself, is the easiest part of chess. Almost all players have the natural aptitude to do that. For most players, it's the first think they can do. Any 300 rated player has the tactical eye to spot when he can win a Queen. Spotting tactics for your opponent is much more difficult. But not impossible, most 800 rated players have the natural tactical eye to see when their Queen is hanging..
Strategy, positional play, calculating multiple moves ahead, etc. That's the difficult part. Backwards Knight moves, pawn structure and color complexes. That's not for everyone.
But the ability to go for the kill, as any beginner playing e4, Bc4 and Qf3 will show you, is ingrained in all of us.
A common misconception is that you are either tactical or positional. You aren't, you need to play both.
The term "playstyle" can be described with terms like "king-side attacker", "small space player", "fianchetto player", "open position player" , "queen-side play player", etc.
stephanjukr of course we need to apply both aspects of the game. But I consider myself “positional” as positional play is more natural to me
NervesofButter I try to do the same
I really envy those 11XX rated players who are either "tactical" or "positional". I have reached up to 2400-something FIDE, and never managed to acquire a playing style...
Apr 4, 2022
0
#50
pfren wrote:
I really envy those 11XX rated players who are either "tactical" or "positional". I have reached up to 2400-something FIDE, and never managed to acquire a playing style...
Some players develop faster than others. Maybe you just are not aware of your style yet.
pfren why the sarcasm? No need to be salty
Jalex13 wrote:
pfren why the sarcasm? No need to be salty
Which sarcasm? It's a fact: only very high rated players can afford the luxury of "having a style", and apparently I never reached that level.
You have serious “old man yells at cloud” vibes honestly. Facts are based on evidence. There isn’t enough research, analyzing and surveying to come to that conclusion, it’s your own opinion.
Jalex13 wrote:
You have serious “old man yells at cloud” vibes honestly. Facts are based on evidence. There isn’t enough research, analyzing and surveying to come to that conclusion, it’s your own opinion.
Ah OK, thanks for pointing this out. At least I have avoided falling into the stylistic patzer category. That's something.
Congratulations on your great achievement. I’m sure it only adds to your large tank of pride
Pfren is right about the tactical and positional thing, but styles, how one plays, do exist. For example, one player may be an aggressive attacker loving kingside attacks white the other could be someone who likes to allow their opponent a large center to attack it later.
stephanjuke thank you for your input
No problem!
DubstepJunkie interesting thank you