tactical vs positional.. whats the difference??

i have a question that has been bothering me for months now.. ever since i read loomis's profile.. he said something along the lines of "ive come to realize that im a positional player and not a tactics player".. now, this was the first time i ever even heard(read) these phrases before. these two phrases have been bouncing around in my head like popcorn ever since then. like, i know simple positional play i.e. control center, rooks=open/half open files, knights centralized, ect... and i know my basic tactics as well.. but, what i dont know is how one can define himself as one or the other.. that is like admitting defeat.. chess involves tactics and positions.. but im getting carryed away with what i wanted to ask here... from what i understand tactics players are like computers.. they calculate insanely, while positional players are all about holding down the right squares and squeezing their opponents like anacondas.. but these to statements are just the basic ideas behind the two ideas of thought behind chess.. i want to know more about these tow ideas (positional chess especially). i just have the basic ideas. cans someone please explain to me more in depth, these two ideas and where( what books0 can teach me positional chess? i feel like there is so much i dont know about these two ideologies!!   

Well... I am currently reading How to Reasses Your Chess by Jeremy Silman, which does kind of teach you positional and strategical play. There are probably better books for positional play though.

Do you like building up your position and quietly pressing your opponent to the point where their only hope is insanely lashing out like a hurt baboon? Bring a tranquilizer as you may be a positional player.

Do you enjoy a complicated game, with the finale being the opponent's king tied up to fireworks for your enjoyment? Bring a snack as you may be a tactical player. 

The labels mostly lean on preferences during games, and not necessarily on having certain principles or not. Every chess player should strive to learn tactics and positional chess equally, but can have specific preferences with regards to playing style

To be brief, Positional chess could refer to anything that improves your position or hurting an opponent's while tactics are the all the tricks chess has to offer (pins, forks, removing the guard, etc.) A tactical player would most likely be a player who seeks complications where many tactics could erupt.

 

tkisdapoop - you're not the only one who has been asking since reading Loomis' profile, I have too. I wish I write a profile that everyone puzzles about !

Nimzo, I disagree very strongly with one point.  I used to be solely a tactical player (I learned to play by playing a computer with very little positional programming).  Now I do both, but I still am much stronger tactically.  I play sometimes with a guy who is very skilled positionally.  The tactical player frequently seeks to simplify the board.  He constantly tries to keep clutter on the board, because it is impossible to calculate everything.  Think about it, if each player has two pawns and a rook on the board, the tactical player can often get by solely on his tactical ability.  Now, I'm not saying a tactical player will never seek complications, but I don't think that its a trait that is specifically common among primarily tactical players. 

Lasker wrote a lot about the difference between positional and tactical players.  He said that the positional player has a position in mind, and works backwards from it, while the tactical player examines the possible moves starting from the position on the board.  Tkisdapoop, if your first impulse during a game is to try to point your pieces toward your opponents king, or get control of the center, you're probably a positional player.  If you usually start by going "If he moves there, then I'll go here, and he'll go here," you're more tactical.  Yes, the great chess player has both, but realistically you'll be better at one or the other.

sparky_k24 wrote: Nimzo, I disagree very strongly with one point.  I used to be solely a tactical player (I learned to play by playing a computer with very little positional programming). Solely a tactical player? Thats very hard to believe. I'm assuming you left all your pieces in poor positions, and neglected to improve your position in any way? yes? Um, probably not. 

I'm Now I do both, but I still am much stronger tactically.  I play sometimes with a guy who is very skilled positionally.  The tactical player frequently seeks to simplify the board.  He constantly tries to keep clutter on the board, because it is impossible to calculate everything. A tactical player simplifies the board because he cannot calculate everything..? what!? Do you realize what you just said? Why wouldn't a positional player not want to simplify the board? Pray tell.

Think about it, if each player has two pawns and a rook on the board, the tactical player can often get by solely on his tactical ability.  Now, I'm not saying a tactical player will never seek complications, but I don't think that its a trait that is specifically common among primarily tactical players.  I'm not getting your connection between tactical play and endgame prowess; you do know they are different (although related) things right? 

 If you could be more specific of what part of my post you "strongly disagree" with, that'd be great.

Was it me saying tactical players enjoy complications? hmm, perhaps it was too strict a statement by me, but I still can't see a tactical player bypassing complications, steering to an endgame, and showing off his endgame prowess as you said.