What is a positional chess player?

Thank you for solving chess.

In the end, I think we are quibbling over words. The spirit of the op was that some players have different play styles, all things being equal. Arguing semantics is doing disrespect to the original thought. 

It is sound advice, however, to remove the line of thinking of "tactical" vs "positional". Beginners must learn the best move by thinking of all things. But to say there aren't players who favor 'positional' closed games... that's something else. 

Watch all of the "Dirty Tricks to Win Chess Fast" videos on youtube published by GJChess who I believe has a presence here at chess.com

LISTEN to how he describes "that juicy square". I've never heard someone describe a chess square in that way and understanding it has changed my playing.

He explains position and tactics, and how in many cases one follows the other. After viewing his videos I see chess in a completely different way. And it was fun because he's entertaining. 

This has truly changed my play. Good luck.

It always annoys me when I hear strong players use it. I must admit I did it myself in the past (long ago).

Usually it means they don't want to take the time to go into specifics.

I've had these discussions before, so I'm not going to do it all over again.

I'll just copy/paste something I wrote in another thread.

Now this is the real problem. What is a positional error? Lets say all my 8 pawns are splintered and all over the place. But now (as compensation) I have a lot of open files and diagonals and I am about to mate you with my piece activity. Now is my position 'positionally' good or bad ? Positional is a word that is empty and really doesn't mean anything.

What is important is the way people look at positions and why they do. The moves, lines, variations are just there for support. Chess has evolved in an unimaginable way since the introduction of the engines. Suddenly we realize that certain positions that looked unplayable, in fact very much are playable. Your remark about pawn islands, double pawns etc. was, though very useful as a guide for beginning players, an example of old school thinking.

There are players who prefer closed positions. (like me)

But there is no such thing as 'positional closed positions'.

And it's not about semantics. It's important to understand that it's not the right approach to look at positions using this terminology.

You try and play the best move on the board.  Regardless of whether its "postional", or "tactical"  

People need to quit with the "Im a tactical player" stuff.  I spent a lot of good years taking advantage of that, and reaping the benefits of players painting themselves into a corner.  

The last rated OTB game i played, was against a guy that played a line of the Benko Gambit i hadnt seen before.  I played by opening principles, and what i knew of the Benko.  After i created a passed won and won, he asked me how i knew what to do?  I told him that i didnt know the line, and played by principles.  He was kinda miffed that i had beaten him and his hours of opening prep with nothing more than principles.

I have to jump in and second what NobodyReally has been saying.  There is no such thing as a positional player, because "positional" isn't a helpful or even meaningful adjective.

However, I think when most people say "positional player" or "strategical player" (also an unsatisfactory term), they do have a meaning in mind: a player whose style seeks a long-term, small, safe advantage over a dynamic, temporary, risky advantage.  I think a better descriptor would be a risk-averse player or a controlling player.  Such a player is more likely to restrict the opponent's activity rather than seek activity for her own pieces.

Anatoly Karpov had a quote that fits this bill very well, actually.  Something about why he changed to 1.d4, rather than 1.e4, which was because he preferred a low-risk position with lower winning chances over a high-risk game with less chance of a draw.  He wanted to have more control. 

I can label myself a doctor.  But if i dont know what im doing, that label doesnt do any good.

yep, theres nothin like a positional player. Its just that some players have a much better positional understanding than others... (which normally translates into being a better chess player.).

In a purely financial perspective it depends on whether the patient pays you. If they did then the title did you good. 

Though never one of my favorite players, i learned more from Karpovs than anyone else.  

one time you understand this when you lose him ;)

Nope, still unsatisfying.

Let's say, like i said before, that my pieces are all over the place, My pawns are doubled, isolated, and doomed. My king is out in the open. But still I am in the middle of a decisive attack.

Now, is my position 'positionally' good or bad. I say good because my stuff is in the right place to actually have this decisive attack.

See what I'm saying? 'Positional' is a useless term that should be avoided.

well, of course u can argue about the definition of the word positional. But in my mind (and I think Nunn said that too) positional means strategical chess. Which contains things like knowing where the pieces belong too, which squares they can invade on and so on... For example in a manouvre position I would claim that the player with the better "positional understanding" will win the game because he knows better whats going on and where the pieces belong. I do indeed believe that there are other aspects in the game than tactics but of course I am a Patzer ^^

Positional chess player is just a combination of words that is pleasing to the ear.

To me the opinion of an erudite GM is is more credit worthy than that of a nonsensical FM.

FMs are cleverer than GMs, atleast.

I'm just kinda baffled by the weird s&^t that seems to be majority opinion on this forum. A thread where they say GM's games don't use tactics; another where they say, apparently, that you don't need to calculate when you play chess; and now here's one where the consensus seems to be that there are no such thing as playing styles.

Nonsense! Of course there is a difference between a positional style and a tactical style. (One could even go further and add in strategic and combinative.) The terms aren't just random words; they were invented for a reason to describe different players' styles.

Now, if you want to say that any great player is capable of using tactics, or strategy, or whatever to suit the position, that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that many players by nature predominantly prefer one style or another.

There is only one type of player: the player who makes the best move every move.

When I hear a player call himself "tactical", all I hear is "I don't understand what my long term goals are when I'm playing chess and I just play for tricks."

When I hear a player call himself "positional", all I hear is "I am not good at tactics and I just hope my opponent hangs a piece."

Again, Paul Morphy is a great example. He may seem like he is "tactical" or "combinative", but if you run through his games with an engine, you will see that he simply had no choice if he wanted to gain and keep an advantage. If keeping that advantage required playing "positionally", that's what he would've done.

It's true, I do think there are at least some bits of playing style involved. He did't have to play the scotch gambit nearly every game, which sure helps lead to the winning moves be combinations.

But I think that separately playing style into merely "tactical" and 'Positional" is completely unhelpful and even hurtful. I am the example of "I'm a tactical player". This is truly what I believed and I wanted to make it true. I wanted to be like Paul Morphy and Tal, and I was tricked into this false dichotemy that you can be a tactical player or a positional player. When I changed my additude from "be tactical" to "don't blunder", by rating raised by 200 points from 1200 to 1400 within a month. Even if there is some value in analysing play style, I think it's really important that beginners do not get confused by this false dichotemy.

I used to play the scandinavian because "I liked how there is a capture on move 2" because "I am an agressive player" and "I like to get the action started as soon as possible." Please don't tell me you think this is a healthy or helpful attitude. In my opinion, that's not at all a way to improve at chess, and it certainly isn't helpful when you come to master games intending to analysize them with that attitude in mind.

@xman720: Sounds like your issues with trying to be overly aggressive and then changing to a more careful playing style are a separate issue from players having different styles, and there being some merit to the terminology used to describe them.

If you haven't, play over 100 games of Frank Marshal, then 100 games of Capablanca, and then come back and we'll resume the discussion. It's not just "correct" moves. There's room for preference, aesthetic sensibility, and individual choice in almost any position. Combinative players prefer to move the game into channels that suit their strengths, as do positional players. Nothing wrong with that; it's all just part of what makes the game so interesting.

A positional chess player is one , when given a choice , who consistently chooses the positional continuation over the tactical continuation . Tal and Petrosian are good examples of two WCs who had opposite styles/approaches to chess .  There are many others , like Alekhine and Capablanca . Then you have players like Spassky who was considered a " universal style/player .