Why are you a Positional or Tactical player?

Write your FIDE rating( if you don't have write what you think it would be) when you respond to this post.(My rating is 2080 FIDE by the way but it was like 1850 until I made this discovery)

Ok, people with FIDE 1800+.. Some of you know there are two ways to play chess: Positional and Tactical. Tactical is to play 1.e4 and any opening as Black beside French and Caro-Kann, that involves knowledge up to 25 moves and White almost always goes after the King. The positional style is to play 1.d4 systems where you put B in g2 and follow up with c4.(That will give you only small advantage but you avoid preparation and theory). 

I play for 9 years since 2001 and I played 1.e4 and Sicilian for 8 years. I was experimenting with 1.d4 and Caro-Kann but did't went to deep into understanding it. In the mid of 2009 i started exploring 1.d4 and caro-kann deeper and now in 2010 I simply memorized like first 10 moves perfect in all responces you can get from Black when I play 1.d4 with ideas for the middle game that are in this types of positions. As Black I play Caro-Kann,  vs. 1.d4 /1.c4 I play Queen's Indian. And guess what. My 5-min rating went from average 1820 to average 2050 after I changed style. I started to get in top 3 in tournaments with little effort. But no less important I got peace of mind! I'm now very, very calm when playing and most players rated U2000 don't know how to play positional and get's owened strategicly fast, and they use a lot more time compaired to how much they used to play in tactical, I tested.

So, the question is, for those who can play both styles... why do you prefer a certain style? Me I chose Positional because I don't like to calculate and checking all the threats and stuff to me is stupid and I don't do it with GREAT ease. Tactical style requires a lot of memorization and I find it premetive and unfair and I have a good memory for chess.

I chose positional style because I like to take decissions rather than calculating. I want to playing on our own (to end theory) as fast as possible. I also don't like to have recent memory full of theory that is disturbing and energy taking.

And one more thing.. a very important one...

TALENT IN CHESS

Talent in chess is the ability to calculate(involves imagination) with an ease of breathing. Some have it some don't. ( I don't). And those who have it will go up to 2200(not over) with ease, without much studying.

And a message to people who are confused when it comes to chess and intelligence. Chess does not measure intelligence. Means if you suck or not good as you want to be in chess it does not mean you are stupid(maybe just not very orginized in learning). Chess is about calculation(that involves imagination but of scientific kind, not imagination that you see in humour or poetry). The other thing is patters. A pattern is something that is learned and understood ONLY through experience. Chess cosists(especially positional chess) of very many patterns. They can be learned from watching GM vs GM, GM vs amature, own experience when analysing with programm and so on.

So...why are you a Positonal or Tactical player?

USCF I'm about 1700, though my performance has been higher than that but I haven't been at many recent tournaments.

I am a positional player because I love the battle of ideas there can be in a positional struggle. I like the drawn out plans and knowing the philosophy behind opening setups. To me the tactics are the means of achieving a plan. It's hard to say why I particularly like this, but I just do. Now, I really appreciate nice tactics and attacks but I feel less secure when I have to be really concrete and calculate alot. I'm more comfortable trying to understand the position.

Rainbow, I think everybody including myself finds positional games boring at least at some point in their chess life, but when I understood the more subtle points of chess, I began to appreciate them. For example, I used to hate going for a q side attack against a k side attack (king's indian), but eventually I appreciated how useful a q side attack can be. Also, I hated the nimzo as black because the doubled pawns gave white a strong center, but now I like viewing the structure as a weakness when I'm black and can change plans when I'm white: to make use of my bishops. The QGD looks pretty symetrical but I appreciated that the small differences in pawn structure give white chances for a small initiative (he can open the c file when he wants and pressures the center more, also his pieces are more active and black's bishop is blocked at first).

And there's something I love about building up my position and maneouvring to improve my pieces but I can't explain what. I'd rather stylistically keep building my position than, when in a more active position, calculating out a tactical way to convert the advantage.

I personaly know an american guy through Internet who is stupid, yes, stupid... very stupid. In chess he almost always beated me and plays very fast. His Blitz rating was 2300-2400 on ICC(that's 2100-2200 on chessbase). He even BEATED a chess engine, I looked through the game it was very complicated calculation. When I played against him I played 1.e4 and Sicilian defense. He always went to open f-file with many different set-ups. Always he tries to open f-file, he plays Dutch, Stone Wall. The guy never studied chess all he has done is looking through theory book TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MISTAKES!! He is still after 9 years playing shitty openings. His FIDE is 2140. He was over 2000 FIDE in 2 years, started at age 12. Excellent at tacticks and calculation. Now comes the INTERESTING PART... I played ultimate positional style vs. him with both colours today after not having talked to him for 4 month, not only could he not hold advantage to move 10 in all 10 games, he was positionaly crushed(won position) before move 15. I must admit I used Rybka, I played the opening in the most positional way and let Rybka take over but that's not the point. The point is, ALL OF YOU WHO SUCKS IN CHESS, master positional style - 1.d4(Bg2), Caro-Kann, Queen's Indian. (any one with reasonable intelligence can do it) and talented players who does not study will be in disadvantage against you. 98% work, 2% talent = chess. 

So this guy was helpless because he could not use his strenght - tactics(imagination/calculation). But if you are strong positional player, to finish off the opponent you will have to be good in tactics. Both are needed: with good tacticks and bad positional play you will not have the opportunity to lunch a tactical combination or material outclaculation and if you are bad in tactics and strong in positional, you will get a won position but you will not be able to finish off your opponnet and often to get this won position you will gave to be down material, so often you will be lost, and if in the won position material is equal it will be a draw.

Yup, you need both, and admittedly tactics more so. So, you used Rybka? Well, Rybka can beat anybody under any circumstances!

I'm actually suprised a "stupid" person could do so well, I mean as much as over 2000 level. As you describe him he seems to pick crude plans but must be very good at calculation, but then how is he stupid? Does he somehow have good calculation skills yet bad logical skills?

If you get into a quiet position, the positional player will have the edge, as they will play better and their tactics are probably not inferior enough for them to make a lot of blunders in a non tactical position. That's why part of the battle of the opening is simply for getting the position you're comfortable in.

I can do both, but not very good

Get sharper, Elubas, he was CRUSHED under 17 moves. The way he was crushed was natural, a strong 2200 positional player could find those moves. My fide is 2080 and is going only up. I can hold equality with Rybka to at least move 30 with full consentration, with both colours. Often longer. Even drew a few times in a long game.

How the guy is stupid? :

His logic is weak. In many ways. One way it showed like this: I made a game totaly moron game, where Knight goes to h3, a3, making many totaly useless, losing positonaly and materialy moves, overprotecting King with all the pieces with no reason, yet I ended it with a queen sacrificeshitty All game is fixed of course just to see if he notices that I'm f. with him. He knows I'm over 2000 player. Game looks like between two total noobs. A normal person would understand I made a joke, even in commentary( I made youtube video with that game) I was acting like a moron, with hair messed up, with a weird voice and quite weird face expressions. When he sow the video he said that he does not agree with many of my moves. He had no clue it was a joke.

What's obvious to normal people is far from obvious to him.

Often he does not see the connection between the previous sentence and current.

Low people skills.

No sense of humour. To him is not funny just does not make any sense.

Does not understand the point of acting, to him is just a lie, and he don't like lies.

Low language skills: does not understand figurative speech, needs to be told in a concrete, dry, detailed way.

Does not understand that a person is acting even if you fool him at the same topic 5 times in a row with some days in between.

Delusional- believe in UFO's watching him, and angels flying outside his window, some times he thought I am one of the angels(I thanked him, it was romantic.)

Paranoid - once after some acting from me he believed that I'm an alient or goverment agent that wants him bad/kill him because he is a genious. (the ideas of alien and secret agent was his).

Beside from this he is a very friendly, good hearted, enthusiastick guy! 25 years old and delivers newspaper every morning for a couple of hours as profession.

He often likes to imagine about other dimensions, life millions of years ago. When he was at school he liked to day-dream, imagianing during class that his rooom mates had no heads and he played football with their heads. Teacher did't know how to teach him.

This is his own quote:" Information can't be created it always exists".

 On the contrary, I believe that it is precisely the kind of imagination that people use in poetry and humour that thrives in chess.

Other than that, great read.

In poetry and jokes, you have to think outside the realm of possibility, outside the regulations of practicality.  Outside the box.  Is that not what we do in chess?  Think of things that seem unrealistic (Or realistic- it doesn't matter, as there is realistic poetry and humour, as well), and make them happen?   

Something that seems unrealistic to an onlooker may be a perfectly logical decision.  A piece sacrifice, for instance, may seem strange to someone who does not understand the purpose of it.  In that same manner, someone who doesn't understand the particular form of symbolism used in poetry may think it doesn't make sense.  But it does- poetry makes sense just as much as chess, and the same kind of imagination is used.

why does it have to be contradicting? could someone explain to me

you can use tactics in order for you to get a good position

so why?

As a rule (there are of course exceptions to any rule) static advantages are pursued by the stronger side though positional means while dynamic advantages are fleeting and are pursued through tactical means.

A weak (permanently) backward pawn or inferior bishop vs good knight are examples of a static advantage.  The advantage is a nearly permanent feature of the position, so slow positional maneuvering is what it takes to turn this into the full point.

A lead in development or having the initiative are examples of a dynamic advantage.  If given time the opponent is allowed to calmly develop a few pieces or if you stop making threats and your initiative goes away then the advantage disappears.  Aggressive tactical play in these situation are ways to turn the advantage into a full point.

Now sometimes you have to trade your advantage in initiative into a structural advantage (dynamic into static) or allow your enemy to get rid of his backward pawn in exchange for the initiative (static into dynamic).  So yes they're more like two sides to the same coin rather than opposing forces as some agitators might like us to believe.

The point is some players are better equipped or prefer milking one type of advantage over another.  Perhaps I know how best to handle isolated queen pawn positions through slow patient maneuvers or perhaps I am quite good at sacrificing pieces to maintain an initiative that leads to checkmate.  Therefore it is a point of discussion, but like you noted they're not conflicting, they work together.

Positional and tactical play are connected, but stylistically there is usually one that we prefer.

I agree.

I believe a "positional player" is somebody who generally prefers "quiet" positions, where the chief characteristic of the position is some subtle thing like a weak square.  And I believe a "tactical player" is somebody who generally prefers wilder positions, in which there are various tactical ideas going on (for example, an open position with various possible captures and checks).

Personally, I much prefer quiet positions, as I seem to be naturally better at them.

BTW, TheBlackCobra, some of that language is a little out of place for a family-friendly forum.  :)

 Every family has to be prepared for the hard times! Otherwise when hard time comes..

Seconded

I can deal with it, but I really don't think swearing that much is necessary here.

Are you serious?  How old are you?

The language he was using was completely inappropriate on a forum which I believe even young children read.