Combinatorial chess can build to a fulfilling flurry of moves, of attack and parry and rejoinder and sacrifice and all those moves that in smashing through the fortress walls give the same joy of victory that masters like Bobby Fischer felt when he compared chess to boxing -- knowing how to punch and when to duck --
How in the world would a positional player in a closed game seeking to squeeze a small edge out of transforming a minute positional advantage of say pawn structure into initiative ever feel such a coming-home-to-the-finish line sweep of victory?
Originally posted by YourWorstKnightmare Combinatorial chess can build to a fulfilling flurry of moves, of attack and parry and rejoinder and sacrifice and all those moves that in smashing through the fortress walls give the same joy of victory that masters like Bobby Fischer felt when he compared chess to boxing -- knowing how to punch and when to duck --
How in the world would a p ...[text shortened]... ver feel such a coming-home-to-the-finish line sweep of victory?
Positional players, tell me!
A positional player doesn't have to duck, he is standing back waiting for you to exhaust yourself with all that unnecessary flailing. Then he squeezes the life out of you once you are too knackered to resist. It's very satisfying.
Originally posted by Kepler A positional player doesn't have to duck, he is standing back waiting for you to exhaust yourself with all that unnecessary flailing. Then he squeezes the life out of you once you are too knackered to resist. It's very satisfying.
Maybe it is like the rope-a-dope boxing strategy of Mohammad Ali
The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance (in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes which allows much of the punch's energy to be absorbed by the ropes' elasticity rather than the boxer's body) while allowing his opponent to hit him, providing only enough counter-attack to avoid the referee thinking the boxer is no longer able to continue and thus ending the match via technical knockout. The plan is to cause the opponent to "punch himself out" and make mistakes which the boxer can then exploit in a counter-attack.
Everyone enjoys what one has got.
A young karate here sees no pleasure in contemplating and wisdom, he despises proverbs "A man's wisdom gives him patience..." etc...
Old man will prefer positional play because he can not perform mawashi geri any more. He must be content with mae geri.
Positional play is mae geri, combinations are mawashi geri.
Only countr for old men - chess country.
Look at Arthur Bisguier - born 1929 and still plays, I think very tactically!
Originally posted by RJHinds Maybe it is like the rope-a-dope boxing strategy of Mohammad Ali
The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance (in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes which allows much of the punch's energy to be absorbed by the ropes' elasticity rather than the boxer's body) while allowing his opponent to hit him, providing only enough coun ...[text shortened]... punch himself out" and make mistakes which the boxer can then exploit in a counter-attack.
That's a fair description of the idea. The chess player has an advantage though, he does not need to convince a referee that he is not comatose.
There is great satisfaction in understanding where your pieces belong and be able to turn a middlegame advantage in a better endgame which you eventually win in just 10 moves because your opponent , a fierce attacker, is more than helpless in endgames.
Chess is like driving , there are times you can(and you must) go fast , but there are times you must go slow.There is no doubt that a driver that is not good at both "types" of driving is a horrible driver.
posistional chess can be very elegant... and agree good tactics come from a good posistion i think an important part of tactics is 'cramping' your opponent of good squares.
You'll have to be sadist if you will master positional play. Imagine you get a very tactical position, where one mistake is losing. Then it's almost random who wins, since both makes alot of mistakes (under GM level). In positional chess, you wait for the tactics to they favour you. If you miss one, you don't loose, but has a slight chance that your opponent can draw. If you don't he will loose.
I just saw a game where Karpov attacked. First, he improved his pieces slightly, so they were superior to his opponents pieces. Then he made a pawn weaknesses on the queenside, and did pressure that. When his opponent was tied down on the queenside, he waited around 10 moves, being sure that the opponent was tired, and then launched a strong kingside assult. The tired opponent couldn't defend accurately, or maybe he just found the endgame, which he could have forced with 6 accurate moves, bad.
Originally posted by YourWorstKnightmare Combinatorial chess can build to a fulfilling flurry of moves, of attack and parry and rejoinder and sacrifice and all those moves that in smashing through the fortress walls give the same joy of victory that masters like Bobby Fischer felt when he compared chess to boxing -- knowing how to punch and when to duck --
How in the world would a p ...[text shortened]... ver feel such a coming-home-to-the-finish line sweep of victory?
Positional players, tell me!
Masquerading a point as a question does not hide the intent.
This isn't the kind of thing someone else could tell you. Either you will figure it out, or you won't.
One might as well try to explain sex to a celibate person.
Originally posted by YourWorstKnightmare Combinatorial chess can build to a fulfilling flurry of moves, of attack and parry and rejoinder and sacrifice and all those moves that in smashing through the fortress walls give the same joy of victory that masters like Bobby Fischer felt when he compared chess to boxing -- knowing how to punch and when to duck --
How in the world would a p ...[text shortened]... ver feel such a coming-home-to-the-finish line sweep of victory?
Positional players, tell me!
Well, I like winning. I will take it any way I can get it. The reality is that not every position lends itself to wild attacking play.
And there is a certain joy to positional victories - squeezing the life out of your opponent like a boa constrictor. You deprive his pieces of good squares, gain more and more space, etc. until something cracks.
Look at it this way - is it more satisfying to beat a player who puts up resistance, or one who folds right out of the opening?
I think that the whole premise of this question is flawed. Dividing up players into the categories of "positional" and "combinatorial/tactical" is a false dichotomy. So called positional players are still looking for tactical opportunities as they improve their positions and tactical players improve their positional to create tactical opportunities. There's really no difference except for philosophy and emphasis.
That said, I find that in games where I focus on simply improving my position with every move, I feel awesome when the action heats up. Suddenly all of my pieces seem to be the in the right spot to attack, defend, and threaten. And even though I didn't forsee this exact position 12 moves ago when I put my bishop in that spot, it kind of looks like I did because it's exactly where it needs to be.
"I think that the whole premise of this question is flawed. Dividing up
players into the categories of "positional" and "combinatorial/tactical" is a
false dichotomy.
So called positional players are still looking for tactical opportunities as they
improve their positions and tactical players improve their positional to
create tactical opportunities.
There's really no difference except for philosophy and emphasis."
Very well put. Excellent.
Perhaps adding:
"So called positional players are still looking for tactical opportunities as
they improve their positions...
...at the same time avoiding creating weakness's in their position that
will give there opponent tactical opportunities."
Originally posted by YourWorstKnightmare Combinatorial chess can build to a fulfilling flurry of moves, of attack and parry and rejoinder and sacrifice and all those moves that in smashing through the fortress walls give the same joy of victory that masters like Bobby Fischer felt when he compared chess to boxing -- knowing how to punch and when to duck --
How in the world would a p ...[text shortened]... ver feel such a coming-home-to-the-finish line sweep of victory?
Positional players, tell me!
I guess the joy only comes when one has positioned his/her pieces so that a tactical brilliancy can be delivered. 😏
Is there any joy in playing positional chess?
16 Feb '13 22:59
Back to Top