Tactical Vs Positional Players
Sort:
If you rarely miss tactical shots I would expect you to be rated more than 900. This is very shocking to me. Are you sure your not missing more complex tactics?
Exactly. I bet only 2000s or at least 1900+ rapid players rarely miss tactics.
Stephan joke I definitely agree. I think he/she is thinking of the most basic tactics: pins, forks, skewers ect.
Ok…but I still think you exaggerated a bit lol
chyss wrote:
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.
Why are 1200 and 1800 turning points?
Most players regard 1200 as beginning to be intermediate and 1800 as beginning to be advanced. I believe that was the basis for those two numbers, but I may be incorrect.
Apr 4, 2022
0
#67
stephanjuke wrote:
Exactly. I bet only 2000s or at least 1900+ rapid players rarely miss tactics.
I miss tactics all the time 
tbh I feel like there are styles but they can only really dictate your choice of opening, not how you play the game.
Apr 4, 2022
0
#68
Jalex13 wrote:
Most players regard 1200 as beginning to be intermediate and 1800 as beginning to be advanced. I believe that was the basis for those two numbers, but I may be incorrect.
Below 1200 (actually below 1800) I can count on them to hang a piece nearly every game their opponent doesn't collapse.
1600-1800 people begin to pick up more positional ideas, at least that's when I began to do so.
ninjaswat I guess I’m an early bloomer in that regard then. And I guess that’s why this has me wondering.
Revival of this topic anyone? Or dead
ninjaswat wrote:
stephanjuke wrote:
Exactly. I bet only 2000s or at least 1900+ rapid players rarely miss tactics.
I miss tactics all the time
tbh I feel like there are styles but they can only really dictate your choice of opening, not how you play the game.
Agreed. If you play some Najdrof you'll miss more tactics than in the London. Perhaps more accurately, rapid should be replaced with classical (or at least 30|0, 15|10, or 60|0).
Apr 5, 2022
0
#72
stephanjuke wrote:
ninjaswat wrote:
stephanjuke wrote:
Exactly. I bet only 2000s or at least 1900+ rapid players rarely miss tactics.
I miss tactics all the time
tbh I feel like there are styles but they can only really dictate your choice of opening, not how you play the game.
Agreed. If you play some Najdrof you'll miss more tactics than in the London. Perhaps more accurately, rapid should be replaced with classical (or at least 30|0, 15|10, or 60|0).
...true I usually don't miss many tactics in classical otb (but I'm not 2000 xD)
I have known plenty of club and tournament players who have a distinct playing style and I've known others who don't. It probably doesn't apply to under 1700 FIDE because they're still in the improving stage where they're probaby experimenting with different ways or styles of playing. Above that sort of rating, it can begin to be noticeable. Some "higher rated" players may forget that at every level of chess, maybe above the point where people are just moving from intermediates to stronger club players, it is possible that most players who play a lot (and have sort of consolidated their status at a particular level) have an identifiable playing style.
The idea that no-one under [whatever] rating can be said to have a playing style makes just as much sense as saying that openings don't matter below [whatever]. Just as silly and possibly pompous. 
