Why are you a Positional or Tactical player?

he's right, get over it. You sound so twee.

I now have lost interest to chess. It's a memory game. I can memorize my self to FM in Karpov's style in one year easily, but what's the point.

I don't have a FIDE rating (not to my knowledge) but I prefer positional because my style is dictating the tempo of the game and that messes with my opponent's head. :)

 Took me a while to formulate a proper "evidence" to you that imagination in chess is of a "dumb" kind and has nothing to do with poetry or humour.

When you look at a tactical puzzle you don't actually need reasoning like "If it was a knight instead of a queen here it would be a fork" (and in the solution queen takes a bishop and sacrifices it self and then Knight steps in the place of a queen and returns and increases the material). Reasoning in tactical/complicated situations is something less talented chess players use to compensate/help for the lack of talent. In a 3 min game you can't use the help of reasoning there is simply no time to perform it at every move. My "retarded" friend(rated 2400 in blitz and rapid) says:" I let the mind flow without reasoning when I look for the best continuation(in blitz and long), I think in pictures". He is talent in chess and "Untalented" in life.

Very interesting thread. I myself most often play e4 and the sicilian. I think it's fun when chess is cut-throat and filled with attack and defense. That being said, I've recently become very interested in the Catalan opening as white, and have played d4 a little bit recently.

My uscf rating is 1715 (granted, only through 13 games with 10 wins and 3 draws, and winning outright 1st at my only 2 tourneys). So perhaps I am a bit underrated at the moment, but I can assure you I am no better than 2000.  Probably somewhere between 1900-2000 most likely.   

However, in blitz, I am approximately 2200 Chessbase (2400ish bullet), therefore, according to Cobra's estimation, about 2350 ICC (2550 bullet). 

As far as my play style, it is quite sharp and heavily tactical, and often includes significant sacrifice of material in exchange for a massive initiative (which is usually decisive barring major blunders)

I typically play the KID vs. 1.d4; Sicilian-type lines vs. 1. e4. 

I don't have the discipline to study much theory, and have always played for fun.  It also doesn't help that I have been the best OTB player in my area (that I've met) since I began playing (age 6), as chess is not very popular in my area.   

I like to think I am a pretty strong calculator, but I have to be honest, and admit that for many players like myself who don't have to work/study too much in order to obtain respectable ratings (mainly in blitz), we seem to have a great ability to swindle our opposition. 

I actually seem to quite accurately fit the description of that 'stupid' American you speak of. 

I was talking about your emotional age, not your chronological age.  :)

I think that definition is wrong. You can't reduce positional play to d4, g3, Bg2 and c4, or tactical style to 1.e4.

They may be closely related with the openings a player wants to play, but the first few moves hardly suffice for that. I don't think there's any need to give examples, it should be already obvious to a 2000+ rated player, don't you think?

EDIT:

"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. "

(...)I now have lost interest to chess. It's a memory game. I can memorize my self to FM in Karpov's style in one year easily, but what's the point.(...)

 OK, I hadn't realized this poster was an interesting combination of a cheater & troll before replying, I should've known better.

I agree with elubas and an_arbitrary_name about the unnecessarily offensive language, it's you who's making a scene here.

Apparently I don't, I don't even know what that is . They just politely mentioned the language wasn't called for, no one was making a big deal.

 Blitz rating reflects natural talent that you seem to have a lot of. Blitz rating does not indicate strenght of a chess player. There are 1950 FIDE players who have blitz 1400 on chessbase. Post some of your lovely Blitz kills in here :)

 Hello mr. Moron - unsedisfied with everything pessimist. Bg2 1.d4 systems can be used against any Black's responce and there for easier to memorize. And they also theoreticly less heavier than systems 1.d4 with B to d3. As long as player is White and wants positional play he will NOT go for tactical lines in this opening you stupid moron. Idiots like you never catch the point of the message and liquids shit everywere. I spit in your ugly face and will piss on your grave.

I am almost certain the "friend" referred to early in this thread is a sufferer of autism. Has he been diagnosed? I would not be confident that Russia would be very good at such things.

And if TheBlackCobra is not suffering from Tourette's syndrome himself, he has no excuse for the diarrhoeic outburst in his last post.

Actually I found it rather funny than offensive, I literally laughed out loud when I reached the ending. He sure has some strong feelings about me, it should be the spirit of the valentines day .

1750 USCF- Why can't you be both positional and tactical?

You have to be, weak tactics was where I lost all my points, so I had to get good at tactics, but my preference for positional play remains with me.

Most often I'd play 1.D4, recently I started 1.E4 and I'm... equally good at both. But if you want to improve, try 1.E4 and study all the lines and practice your tactics, and only then if you prefer go into 1.D4... My personal favourite is 1.d4 but also I have many good games with 1.e4... and if you don't want too much opening theory go with 1.Nf3 :)... and one more thing. even if you are 1.d4 player, try to find more aggressive moves and practice your tactical vision :)

Cobra you have the wrong idea about chess imagination and positional games. Not all positional games go the way you are saying. You don't know the theory involved and certaintly don't know what true tactics and calculations are.

LMAO

But it really is horrible how people approach chess.

If you think chess is a memory game, you have missed the point of positional chess entirely. Positional thinking enables someone to evaluate a position, set priorities and make strategic decisions WITHOUT having to have the raw calculative or memory capacity of a computer. Certainly memory helps this, but if you approach chess with the attitude that memorization can solve it, then it's no longer the imaginitive outlet for self expression and brain stretching it once was, and it has just become a really complex version of checkers, which really can be memorized.