What is a positional chess player?

^ title. Also, I'm new to chess and I'm beginning to know more things... All I need is someone who can tell me what a positional player is.

I have also heard something about a tactical player? What is this difference between a positional player or a tactical player?

Also, are there any well known chess players that are a positional player? 

An observation I have is that the weaker a player is, the more they tend to use terms like positional and tactical players. There is a famous saying: there are no positional and tactical chess players, there are only good and bad chess players!

That said, broadly speaking a tactical player is one who will seek combinations that can require intense complication to win material. A positional player may avoid this hand-to-hand fighting and seek a deeper, more intuitive, understanding of some positions being better than others, and may prefer a slower game. But if you don't understand and excel both tactical and positional chess you have no hope of being a strong player in my opinion. 

I may not have explained it well. For a proper explanation see this post from a GM:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/positional-or-tactical-chess 

Seriously, a good chess player just makes the best move. The more I've thought about it, the less I've understood the dichotemy of tactical vs. positional, or why it even matters.

Here are a series of ideas which I often see shared concerning the topic, which I think are completely wrong:

Paul Morphy was a tactical chess player:

False. If you put his games into a computer, he simply nearly always plays the best move. It doesn't matter whether the move is a strategic pawn push, or a spectacular sacrifice.

Petrosian/insert Russian GM was a positional chess player:

False. Grandmasters have better tactical vision than anybody who says this, and Petrosian never missed an attack in his career as a GM. Any GM has won games in any way imaginable: Miniatures with opening traps, simplifying to a pawn up ending, or a spectacular middle game checkmate. Any grandmaster is neither positional nor tactical.

Tal was a tactical player

False. Again, if you put Tal's games into engines, the vast majority of his sacrifices were simply the best move. He didn't do anything particularly more "tactical" than other chess geniuses. When his opponents made strategic mistakes, he exploited them with tactical sacrifices. This requires superior knowledge of both positional and tactical chess.

If you sacrifice pieces a lot, you are a tactical player.

False. If the sacrifices are good, you are a good player. If the sacrifices are bad, you are a bad player. You have to play the board, not the opponent or your own habits.

If you tend to close the position, you are a positional player.

False. If closing the position is advantageous, then you are a good player. If closing the position gave up an advantage, then you are a bad player. You have to do what the position demands, whether that means sacrificing something, being patient, or just not blundering.

Just try to play the best moves and don't tailor your thoughts or your openings.

xman--great post (it's the only thing I can add to it).

Positional and tactical are terms low rated players like to use.  Play the position on the board, not the label.  

as you are a beginner perhaps some terms are confusing, let me see If I can explain it.

Chess is a simple game, If I threaten to capture a peice, you will (should) defend this.  perhaps you simply move the peice away.  but either way, normally chess players do not win material unless someone makes a bad mistake "Blunder".

Occasionally I will find a move that unavoidably allows me to win a more valuable that I lose.  You will not be able to move it away or prevent me from capturing material.   This kind of move is a "Tactic".

If I make a series of such moves, or my unavoidable strong moves lead to checkmate, a chessplayer would say I did a "Combination" because I played several tactics one after another.

This is Of course Not the only way a chess player can go.  some chess games are quiet without one side capturing more peices (or more valuable peices) than the other.   Instead of attacking the King, peices are exchanged and the last phase of the game begins (the "endgame")

Normally the focus of the endgame is to promote a pawn.  the placement of opposing pawns and the kings can become critical.  in this kind of game, smaller advantages lead to the ability to push the pawn to promotion.  these smaller advantages are called "Positional" advantages because, in a game where both players had the same amount of peices, The "position" favors one player over the other.

sometimes, and in some ways, a chessplayer can make choices that favor the quiet "positional" game or the more exciting "tactical" game.  chess players have to struggle some to understand both kinds of advantages and it is natural that they become better at understanding one thing over the other.

What is Important to understand, though, is that strong chessplayers tend to be both very good at learning tactics and Positional chess.  a chess player Cannot be strong if he ignores one of those.  nevertheless some players like the current world's best chessplayer Carl Magnuson is known as a "positional" chess player and often wins inthe endgame.   theformer world's best player, a guy from India,  Viswanathan Anand is known as a "tactical" chessplayer.

If all great chess players only played "best moves" there would be no point in studying their games vs computer games. There are players who prefer more open or closed play. That doesn't mean they don't play good moves no matter what. But chess is still a human game, with human biases for the type of play one prefers.

Humans have biases, but strong players very much Want to win.

there is LESS of a difference than many people say there is, on the other hand, there IS a difference.

Good post!

Human fraility get in the way of chess.  "Im postional"..."im tactical"..."I prefer bishops over knights"...etc.

Exactly!  Low rated players like to label everything!

Case in point:  Joe Shmoo, an 1100 player, goes to the chess board.  He doesn't know any opening theory, and yet he wants to label everything.

One game, as White, he plays 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Nf3 (despite 4.c4 or 4.Bd3 being stronger) and says "I just played a Caro-Kann, Baby!"

Next game, as White, he plays 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.e3 cxd4 4.exd4 and says "I just played a Colle, Baby!"

I'll let you figure out the difference in the position after his 4th move of game 1 versus after his 4th move of game 2!

The first two I could see a beginner saying.

I have no empathy for those that make the third statement.  You are simply put a complete and utter chess moron if you ever say you prefer one minor piece over another.

Actually, I also prefer one minor piece over the other every game.  Difference is, I prefer the one that's better for the given situation!  Good Knight vs Bad Bishop?  Give me the Knight, Baby!  Good Bishop vs Passive Knight?  Give me the Bishop, Baby!

Dont dissaude these jeenyuses...it gives us food for comedy.

So (great patzer) Carl Magnusson is the strongest player in the world eh? You've gotta love chess.com forum, the deaf leadibg the blind...

There is no such thing as a positional chess player. Like there is no such thing as playing positionally. Forget about these labels a.s.a.p.

Just try to find and play the best move in any position.

It is true that you should play as the position demands, but often there is flexibility and a player can choose between a sharp, tactical option and a quiet, positional option. For example, after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6, a player who likes very complicated, messy positions with lots of imbalances might play 5. Bg5 while a player who prefers quieter positions with less risk might play 5. e3 followed by Qc2.

opps. "magnus Carlsen" you got me.

but yes I do know who he is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen

Complicated and quiet has nothing to do with 'positional'. Positional is devoid of any meaning and shouldn't really be used as an adjective.

I do like the idea of us, as a community, simply forgetting the word "positional" ever existed.

A "quiet" position just means a position where both players have lots of options that are good. This is the opposite of a "sharp" position, where all moves except for one or two are blunders.

This position is sharp:

Because both white and black have to practically play a forced sequence of moves if they want to maintain equality with each other. If any player strays away from that sequence, he has blundered.

This is quiet:

Because there are lots of ways to procede that maintain equality.

It is not very useful to describe them as "tactical" or "positional"

@nobodyreally, I've heard other strong players use the word positional as an adjective. But what you say makes sense; I've thought the same thing before, but never came to a definite conclusion.

Play the position on the board...end of story.