Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I remember reading in a thread of a school of chess players who prided themselves on
winning games with little tactical or no tactical flurry, can anyone remember the
reference to that school or players - regards Robbie.
Tactical vs. Positional Chess
According to my opinion..
Tactical chess is about strategy, how to execute our plan to get some benefits, in many case, its about combination, sacfrice, to create mating net or execute a mating combination, or to win some material advantage, etc..
Tactical is about Execution...
Positional Chess, is about controling the squares, as many as possible, including the centre or all over the board if possible, to bring our soldiers at the right square, regrouping them, make them the right men on the right place, to play actively, exchange our bad piece with our opponent's good one, building our initiative, preparing our plan, creating pressure to our opponent pyschologically...not try to win quickly, but keep the pressure alive, and step by step push our small advantage higher than before, and keep our threat alive...
According to Josh Waitzkin in The Art Of Learning, Don't try to win quickly, don't try to think about combination if we are not a great thinker...play step by step, play actively, put our soldier on the right square, control the squares, make a good pawn structure, and with a clear head, we use to make threats as many as possible...keep that threats alive.
Remember, the threat is stronger than execution..