What is a positional chess player?

Reb, are you the other NM Reb?

There are some great posts here. The only thing I will add here is that I think that until you can play without making huge blunders often, that things like style are fairly irrelevant. Your preferences to tactics and attack or subtle positional play matters little if you leave pieces en prise or often get forked or X-rayed. 

I think once you have tactics under control - avoiding big mistakes fairly consistently - then I think style or preference can start to come into play...somewhat. Alex Yermolinsky puts it well in his book Road to Chess Improvement (awesome book btw) discusses the differences between Botvinnik (considered the "positional" player) and Tal (the "tactical" player): [paraphrasing because I don't have the book in front of me] "I expected to see big differences in their style of play, but the more I studied the games between them, the more I noticed that they were two great players bashing away at each other - Tal attacking slightly more often - but in general, I did not see one being more "positional" or "tactical" than the other - just two players making good moves against each other."

In any case, after reading this I realized I had to learn to make better moves (in general) and really try to avoid blundering - an ongoing project.

I don't think it's as simple as "play the position on the board."

There often are positions where you can choose the tactical/sharp continuation or opt for the more solid/structural continuation, both of which lead to very different styles and lines of play. 

You ignore this at your own peril as well. I used to believe all the folks on these forums who said there was no difference, so I just worked on tactics, tactics, tactics, assuming everything would be tactical at some level, and then whenever I played the French defense advance variation, I would lose pretty badly without having much of a clue why, and the computer analysis wouldn't help much as you could see my opponent just gradually improving their position by <1 centipawn until it was a crush.

Now I def see positional vs tactical themes in all my games. Doesn't mean you can ignore either - you need elements of both, but more often than not, you get many chances to choose whether you go down the positional route (often by blocking the pawns in a part of the board) or tactical route (sacs, etc.)

We can agee to disagree on this, but it is as simple as "Play the position on the board"

The right move may be positional, it may be tactical, it mya be prophalactic, or whatever other term you want to use, but the idea is to find the right move.  

Even Kaprov said:

Style, I've got no style.

Anatoly Karpov

I'll also agree to disagree. I very, very much think you misunderstand Tal if you think he was a tactical player. The reason why he had excellent sacrifices available to him is because he noticed the subtle strategic mistakes his opponents made (putting a piece on an inferior square, making a pawn move prematurely, not seeing the importance of a threat etc.) If he wasn't a deep strategic player, he would have never been able to see the problems his opponents made for themselves and would have never been able to set up the sacrifices that are simply the culmination rather than the act of his genius.

Obviously many here havent played enough tournament chess against titled players to realize the difference(s) between tactical and positional chess players . The tactical chess players are more likely to blow you off the board and win in the middlegame while positional players are more likely to gain a pawn or two , snuff out all counterplay and then grind you down in an easily won ( for them ) ending . Ofcourse this doesnt mean that the tactical player cant play positionally or that the positional player cant use tactics , strong players can do it all but they all have preferences and these preferences are what defines them one way or another . Karpov also once was asked how was it that he was never in time trouble and he explained that where some top players always search for the best move in a position he is content to find a good move and play it quickly , thus avoiding time trouble that often comes with constantly searching for the best move in a position . 

We often hear that in chess there are two kinds of advantage - material and positional. Is the term "positional" justified in this sense?

If I understand you correctly you are saying that concrete analysis of position is always more important than abstract guidelines. Most obvious example is the guideline we all learn as beginners that bishop is worth 3 pawns. At my 1700 I realize quite well that it's only on average and there are positions where it's not true. However typical positional factors that you mention - pawn islands, double pawns etc. - from what rating level we don't need them in your opinion?

When it comes to player style, I think the determining factor is how that player views the game. What is his motivation for playing? To win? To play beautifully? To play a clear game? To build grandiose startegic plans? It's a matter of temperament.

A combinative player (like Morphy, Spielman or Marshal) for example, loves sacrifice and kingside attack. He'll guide any position into those channels. If a player of this type can sac two rooks, a queen, then a bishop to finally mate with a pawn, he'll have an actual orgasm right there at the table.

A positional player (Capablanca, Karpov) may not care for that, so he usually just makes little moves to gradually improve his position. It isn't just "closing the game" as some people said above; it's more that he prefers to avoid the temptation of attacking anything and makes solid, developmental moves, even in open positions.

A strategic player (Botvinik, Nimzovitch, Tarrasch) likes making plans, sometimes long-term plans, and employing meta-strategies that he builds his game around. The difference between him and a positional player is that positional players like being flexible and making single moves that improve their position, while the strategist loves long sequences of moves building into a strategy (like Nimzo spending half a dozen moves or more creating an outpost, overprotecting it, trading off pieces that protect it, and finally occupying it).

A tactician's talent (Lasker, Tartakower) lies in spotting tactics better than others, so he usually is the most flexible of the types. People might call his style inscrutable, since he often doesn't stick to any plan, and plays "for the joy of calculation," as Tartakower put it. By temperament, he loves getting lost in a maze of variations, and often finds surprising continuations, even in (apparently) quiet positions. 

All great players do what they do with the clear understanding that they're always waiting for a tactical mistake by their opponent, and they can all play with a mix of different styles. We're just talking about predominant styles here, or preferences.

(Sorry that went so long; just had my morning coffee.)

Put another way, a positional player is one who knows when to play dynamically and when to work to build up his or her static advantages. A good positional player is someone who is very good at tactics, and also understands when to use tactics to simplify to a won endgame.

I def still disagree with those who say it's just 'play the board.' 

I have a few books with various IM/GM authors, and the styles couldn't be more different, with guys like Cyrus Lakdawala intentionally taking 'cowardly' avoid-tactics routes more often than not, even in tactically won positions, because he's much more comfortable with a safe positional grind. 

If there's a clear best move on the board, then sure, you play the board, but if there's no clearly best move, or in class-player situations, you simply can't FIND the best tactical shot, you often have to choose between sharp vs positional lines that result in very different play, and if you don't play to your strength, you'll be at a disadvantage.

I DISAGREE WITH EVERYONE!

On the first several pages of this forum.

The only 2 people I AGREE WITH on this forum are:

EthanPatra  &  NM Reb

The reason I agree with EthanPatra is because he has done nothing wrong.

The reason I agree with NM Reb is because he is the only one who has a clue on this forum.

I disagree with everyone esle because they have no clue what they are talking about.

I do not even feel like regurgitating the nonsense said on this forum.

However, I will!

To prove my point!

People have said statements like the below ones:

"Remove the line of thinking of "tactical" vs "positional"

"Positional and tactical are terms low rated players like to use."

They are all wrong!

To understand why they are wrong.

Lets start off at the begin:

Start:

What is a positional player?

A positional player is a player who's play is dominated by long-term maneuvering for advantage rather than by short-term attacks and threats, and requiring judgment more than extensive calculation of variations.

The above text in italics is the wikipedia definition!

The definition which I like to use is more lay-mens terms.

I consider positional players people who try to slowly build up an advantage. They are not trying to do cheapo tricks or crazy attacks. They are trying to slowly build up small advantages until it gets to a point were you are completely crushed.

People often call positional players Grinders, Pythons, or Boa Constrictors.

They slowly try to squeeze you to death until you can no longer move with out losing huge amounts of material. They are like sadistic players who try to beat you into submission.

What is a tactical player?

A tactical player is a player who's play is dominated by short-term knock out blows, they specializes in tactical play.

The above text in italics is the wikipedia definition!

The definition which I like to use is more lay-mens terms.

I consider tactical players people who try to go for knock out blows with piece power! They try to man handle you with brute force. They have very good calcuation, they have very good pattern recognition, very strong tactic training, and they love hunting your king.

They are not afraid of sacrificing material.

These are the types of player who like to come after you!

They beat you with pure intimidation.

Reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chess

What is this difference between a positional player or a tactical player?

Hopefully the above definitions which I showed you give you a better understanding of each time.

You can see how they are polar opposite of each other.

When you think of phrases to call them:

The positional player -

• Conservative
• Don't want alot of risk
• Happy with small advantages
• Happy if they win 1 pawn
• Doesn't mind if the play is dull
• Doesn't mind if the game last 150 moves
• They try to prevent you from having any play( Often called prophylaxis).

The tactical player -

• Wreckless
• Loves taking risk
• Only happy with big advantages
• Only happy if they check mate you. (They don't care about winning 1 pawn. They want your kings head lol)
• Trys to crush you for the glory
• Likes shorter games 40 moves
• They try to enter very complicated tactical position with pieces hanging all over the place.

Again they are completely different.

As a chess player through your journey of becoming stronger you will end up with a mixture of both.

Every chess game has a mixture of both Positional and Tactical play.

As a chess player you will always have some level of both.

You will inherently have a mixture!

One of the main reasons you will be exposed to a mixture is because of your future opponents!

If your opponent really really wants a dull position you really can't prevent it from happening.

Your opponent will find a way to make you in a dull position.

They have there ways!

or

If your opponent really really wants the position to be absolutely nuts you can't prevent them from doing it either!

They have there ways of doing crazy tactic stuff which are completely unsound to make the position strange!

Thus, you will inherently have a mixture of both positional and tactical play under your belt through the course of your chess career!

Here is the important part I want you to focus on!

I will highlight all of this in red so you can see it!

The part you have to understand is even though you will inherently have an exposer to both types.

Eventually, your playing style may contain more of one mixture than the other mixture.

Lets give a percentage so you can understand what I mean.

Lets say you as a single person are 100%.

As a chess player you will be exposed to both positional and tactical play.

Which means what is your mixture of positional vs tactical play make up?

Is your mixture 50% positional & 50% tactical?

What if your mixture is not 50% positional & 50% tactical?

It might be 20% positional & 80% tactical

or

It might be 80% positional & 20% tactical

When you start becoming a stronger chess player.

Your style will start to surface.

It will become more pronounced.

People will be able to see it.

They will see it based off the lines you play.

They will see it based off the decisions you make in the game.

They will see it based off your reaction to your opponents move.

Now lets give you a real life chess game example to bring this home!!!!!

Lets look at a very common opening line which has been played millions of times by low level players to GM level players.

We reach the following position.

If you have never seen this position that is completely OK!

You can search this position on Chess.com Game Explorer or if you type Chess Game Explorer on google you will find tons of different ones which can show you the above position.

I will provide a hyper link below:

CLICK HERE FOR GAME EXPLORER

After playing the above moves you will arive in the below picture:

Now we are all on the same page lets say we are white in this position and it is our turn to move.

Now here is a perfect example of what I have been talking about!

In this specific position you are at a cross road!

It is our move and we are in a position were thousands of players have chosen between several different moves!

Now it is our turn to make our move!

What move should we play?

If we play the move 4.Nc3.

Thousands of chess players would say good job Nc3 is the way!

If we play the move 4.e3.

Thousands of chess players would say good job e3 is the way!

Both ways have been played!

Furthermore, You can find books by high level players who would recommend either continuation.

Now as a beginner you might have never played either line.

Which means you may not know anything about how they play out!

However, one day once you become a stronger chess player you might experiment with both lines.

Eventually you will end up picking one which you prefer or which might become your favorite!

An the decision you make will be based off your own personal preferences and inner chess style!

Now in the above example I showed you.

The move 4.e3 is considered more positional and quiet in nature.

In fact, believe it or not the name of the line is called:

The Slav Defense/Quiet Variation

It is funny.

They call it the quiet variation because it is more slower.

What do positional players like?

Slower games where they can slowly build up an advantage.

If you were that type of player you would prefer or chose the move 4.e3 over 4.Nc3.

Simply because it fits in with your natural chess ability.

You as a chess player have your own stye hidden with in you.

Your own natural chesss ability waiting to be unleashed!

If you remember from my above text.

I gave percentages.

I said a person could be 80% positional & 20% tactical.

Now think about it for a min.

A person who is 80% positional and only 20% tactical will make decisions which are what?

They will make more decisions which lean toward positional games than tactical ones.

In the above example I showed they might prefer playing 4.e3 instead of 4.Nc3.

Simply because it moves the game into a type of game they are more comfortable with.

Do you see that?

Now does that mean every positional player is going to play 4.e3 in that position?

NO!!  WHY?

Because there are different levels of positional players!!!!!

Chess players try to label things under categories:

• Positional
• Universal
  
• Tactical

However, believe it or not there are sub categories under each of those!

For example:

A person who is 80% positional & 20% tactical will make more decisions positionally based

However, What if a player is  60% positional &  40% tactical?

The player who is 60 - 40 is still going to favor more positional lines than tactical ones.

However, he is not as extremely as the 80 - 20 guy.

What would the 90% positional - 10% tactical  guy play?

He wouldn't even play 4.e3

He would play the Exchange Slav which happens at move 3!

He would make things extremely boring and dull.

Look how lifeless that position is!

If I was black I would offer a draw just looking at it the position.

Believe it or not I am a Grinder!

I am a positional player by nature.

However, even that position is super extreme for me.

I wouldn't even want to play that position.

This is exactly why I believe everyone on this forum was wrong except for NM Reb.

I will post what Reb said as well below:

It was beautiful in its own right!

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.

Yes! when give the choice they choose to go positional over tactical!

Like the chess game example I showed!

I know you are a beginner so you might not know who Tal or Petrosian was.

Let me get the chance to tell you so you can understand what Reb ment by that post.

Mikhail Tal was a former World Chess Champion who is remembered for his deadly tactical attacking style.

The majority of his games were tactically based.

He had pieces flying all over the places.

Did explosive and dangerious sacrifices.

He intimidated his opponents so bad some of them made blunders out of fear.

They were afraid if they took the material he offered them they would get checkmated.

If you Remember the percentages.

Tal would be the player who is:

80% of Tal games were Tactical.

20% of Tal games were Positional.

He did have very good positional games believe it or not.

However, many people don't remember them all.

They remember him based on the majority of his games.

On the other hand

Tigran Petrosian was a former World Chess Champion who was a very strong positional chess player.

The majority of his games were positionally based.

He did have a couple games which were tactically brillant.

However, people remember him based mostly on the majority of his games!

They put him in the positional categories.

80% of Tigrans games were positional.

20% of Tigrans games were tactical.

The Last person Reb talked about was Spassky.

Boris Spassky is another former World Chess Champion.

He is remember for having a universal style.

I didn't talk alot about Universal players.

However, I feel this one is sort of easy to figure out.

Bascially players who are universal are very close 50 - 50.

They have:

50% of there games which were positional.

and

50% of there games which were tactical.

He was a balanced type of player.

He didn't lean toward one style exclusively.

The reason this is important is because you should always try to play towards your strengths in chess.

When you play chess obviously most people try to win.

One of the best ways of winning is to play to your strengths!

If you are naturally gifted toward one particular style.

Than why fight it?

Why not play lines which help you use your natural gifts and understanding to help you win.

This is the logic people use when talking about styles.

Tigran Petrosian was gifted in his positional and defensive minded chess style.

It was his natural chess gift.

What did he do?

Did he hide it his skills?

No, he played games which helped enhance his skills!

He allowed himself the best possible chance which allowed his skills to shine.

In doing so he stayed as a World Chess Champion for a decade!

Believe it or not he revolutioned chess.

No one in history had ever used a positional defensive strategy in chess the way Tigran Petrosian did.

Many people didn't think it could be done.

They believed attacking was the only way to play.

He completely changed the way chess players think with his defensive positional style.

His playing style is so legendary and recongized by the masses.

They gave him a nickname.

They called him "Iron Tigran"

For his penetrable defensive technique.

that settles it then

Lastly, I would like to finish my agrue with 2 different links as evidence!

The evidence which I am providing is Blog articles written by GM Hikaru Nakamura in his own words!

https://www.chess.com/blog/Hikaru/fide-grand-prix-khanty-mansiysk

Gelfand, Boris vs. Nakamura, Hikaru

In his game Hikaru said the following text:

Certain players would have no trouble playing this sort of position, but Gelfand's style isn't one where he likes to sacrifice material unless there's a clear initiative.

Talking about Boris Gelfands style!

This game was a draw.

Hikaru showed very impressive variations which could of been played.

The point to take away is the fact Hikaru talked about a players style!

A style which people on this forum say doesn't even exist.

A style which people on this forum say is low level thinking.

 Hikaru Nakamura is currently ranked number 6 in the world.

In October of last year, he was ranked number 2 in the world.

Second post by Hikaru!

It was a real joy to read!

https://www.chess.com/blog/Hikaru/us-champs

Hikaru Nakamura in his own words again said the below statement:

Nakamura, Hikaru vs. Akobian, Varuzhan

The main thing to take away from this second-round game is that you have to play openings or ideas that suit your style. GM Akobian has been playing the French for a very long time, but while he is a very strong positional player, tactical play doesn't suit him as much.

Akobian lost this game.

Hikaru is obviously suggesting in the above text the reason Akobian lost this game was due to the very uncomfortable position.

It is an uncomfortable position for Akobian because he is more of a positional type of player.

He is obviously playing something outside of his comfort zone.

Which is very bold and risky.

Obviously, we give Akobian props for trying to stem out of his comfort zone.

However, These sort losses can happen.

Which obviously shows the dangers of dismissing your playing style.

 It's a shame when idiots write idiotic posts in interesting threads. 

In an ongoing onlinegame I sacrified my position to win a pawn with a simple tactic. Now I am working hard to recover from a bad position , beeing restricted and behind in development.

In another game I am playing the Smith- Morra gambit, which starts with a simple tactical pawnsacrifice trying to gain a lead in development, and positional dominance with my pieces, which can lead to tactical possibilities. 

To focus on offence or defence ? It depends on the way my opponent play. Sometimes it looks good to counterattack and ignore whatever he takes, and other times it looks better to defend everything and slowly build an advantage. 

I am a mixed player, working both offensive and defencive, positional and tactical. Whatever works in the current game.

Carlsen is mixed too, one of the best in the world both positional and tactical.

I think DjonniDerevnja has said a very common mistake which most people do.

DjonniDerevnja is trying to use the terms offensive and defensive interchangeably with tactical and positional.

This is actually incorrect.

Offensive and defense don't intermingle with tactical and positional.

They stand at there respected corners!

However, I do not blame Djonni for making this very common mistake.

These relationships are very tricky to say the least!

I will explain why this relationship can be tricky.

Offensive and Defense are sololy based on a board position!

Tactical and Positional are sololy based on a players preference!

Which you can see the difference highlighted in red font!

The reason the text in red is important is because in chess sometimes you run into situations were you are "Forced in your decision"

Bascially your decision is extremely limited or in some cases you have no choice at all!

For example lets give a game scenerio:

In this game example your opponent is threating to check mate you in 1 move.

They are planning to play Qxf7#

In this example you can see how black's options are limited!

Black will have to play some defensive move:

Lets give examples of different moves black can play to defend against this mate threat.

• 3...g6
• 3...Qe7
• 3...Qf6
  

In this situation you can see how these moves are the only real reasonable moves which don't lose material.

Offensive moves like 3...d5 or 3...Nf6 don't help the situation.

Now read the below text again:

Offensive and Defense are sololy based on a board position!

Tactical and Positional are sololy based on a players preference!

In this situation we have limited options based on the board position.

The move we will have to make in this scenerio will ultimately end up being a defensive move.

Now what if we are a Tactical player?

What move will we have to make?

The move will again be a defensive move.

The reason why is because no offensive move can really help us in this situation.

Our opponent has given us a simply threat which restricts our options.

Now lets look at the moves options again.

• 3...g6
• 3...Qe7
• 3...Qf6

Which move should we play?

Well the move we play now may stem from our personal preference!

Do you see how the only way to solve the problem is to play a defensive move.

However, among the defensive move we have stylistic preference!

Maybe the more Tactical minded players will play a queen move which develops the queen and guards against the threat.

Maybe the more Positionally minded players will play the pawn move.

I think this example shows in detail.

How the relationship between

Offensive & Defense vs Tactical & Positional work!

Me :)