Simply, tactics are series' of moves with the intent of winning some piece or element in the game, while positional play aims for more subtle advantages, like pawn structures, or tempo.
tactics vs position
Sort:
myfreechess wrote:
Simply, tactics are series' of moves with the intent of winning some piece or element in the game, while positional play aims for more subtle advantages, like pawn structures, or tempo.
Thank you. Which of these is most important for someone with a rating around 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 etc? Or does it not matter?
tactics and very simple positional ideas are all that matter until at least 1600.
Tactics are important in the learning of chess, but knowledge of position is equally if not more important, because good tactics flow from good position.
newbchessplayer wrote:
myfreechess wrote:
Simply, tactics are series' of moves with the intent of winning some piece or element in the game, while positional play aims for more subtle advantages, like pawn structures, or tempo.
Thank you. Which of these is most important for someone with a rating around 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600 etc? Or does it not matter?
Both are equally important. Tactics is more of the "now" advantages, while positional advantages may only start to show benefits later in the game.
I am going to be a bit metaphoric. You want to know the difference in black and white between these two things, yet you seek to be able to understand them in the gray areas, where they come together as well...
If this makes no sense to you, but you are intrigued, PM me and I will clarify. I don't feel like justifying my view point, there after to anyone else...
What is the difference between tactics and position and which is more important?
I just wanted to add, this is a serious question. I'm asking because it sparked a debate between me and another chess player.