Is Winning Chess Strategies by Seirawan "positional?"

Chess understanding does not necessarily mean you have the ability to apply the knowledge.
I may know a lot about football but still be rubbish on the pitch.

This is why players can go quite far with a bit of opening and endgame knowledge, a couple of
strategic ideas and a ton of practical tactics training. If you can come out of the opening with a
roughly equal position then have sufficient tactical superiority to gain a piece or two you can
win the endgame by force - and that's the strategy.

Conversely you can have a real in depth knowledge of the game that comes to nothing when
you drop a couple of pieces to sharp tactics.

This is not to suggest you shouldn't study strategy and all elements of the game especially as
I see this study as one of the rewards of chess. But if you come up against someone who
spends an hour or two a day training tactics...

Originally posted by grit
My rating is a little over 1230. So all the famous positional chess books everyone is recommending are really too hard for me now.

Could Seirawan's Strategies book be considered a positional primer for someone in my rating level? If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks.
grit

I believe it will be extremely helpful for you. It is a fantastic book, well written, and with material that people of your level will find useful and instructive

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
in my copy of 'Modern Ideas in chess', written by Reti, there are three examples of Steinitz style, juxtaposed and compared to Morphys style, and the differences noted, and more importantly why they arose. There is an interesting Steinitz - Tschigorin game which exemplifies his principles, if i find the time i may post it with annotations. But let u ...[text shortened]... al imagination, it was his understanding of the positional concepts which made the difference.

I fail to see Morphy as a positional player, open tactical arenas were
always more to his style and liking.

-GIN

Originally posted by Nowakowski
I fail to see Morphy as a positional player, open tactical arenas were
always more to his style and liking.

-GIN

yes but you are confusing style with strategy!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes but you are confusing style with strategy!

Our style dictates our ability to depict, conduct, and create strategy. Our
Style dictates our strategy, and our strategy dictates our play. This is why
the statement in my profile exists as it does:


An illustration, a shifting representation of logic, guiding the principles
of a pair of grande designs. Where the imbalance of human
philosophical predilection, erodes logic's hold, on equilibrium.
-GIN

Make no mistake, a player used to closed positions will naturally seek those
types of positions. This becomes an important type of strategy. As this
begins to dictate a players repetoire, and in time will lend to certain move
types that will dictate the games pace and general play. Therefore, style
and strategy are symbiotic relationships. If a player is better at tactical
strategems, they will naturally adopt it as a style. Also if a player is
better at closed positional strategems, then that player will naturally
adopt it as a style of play. Hyper-aggressive personalities can usually
be depended on for tactical styles of play, whereas counter-thinkers and
more slow paced developed thinkers can typically be depended upon
for slower paced more closed and positional type of play. Of course
their are exceptions to this rule, however I don't believe Morphy was.

I think their is little doubt, in closed positional situations, the process
of thought for Morphy was not the same as Steinitz, nor could we depend
on Morphy's closed positional thought process for the creation of the laws
of Steinitz as fundamental guidelines for the proper play in
such positions.

-GIN

Originally posted by grit
My rating is a little over 1230. So all the famous positional chess books everyone is recommending are really too hard for me now.

Could Seirawan's Strategies book be considered a positional primer for someone in my rating level? If not, what would you suggest?

Thanks.
grit

Ive read winning chess tactics and it helped me alot.

ok, if you will not take my word for it, how about some of these world champions

"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that the greatest stylist has been Morphy. Whence the reason, although it might not be the only one, why he is generally considered the greatest of all." ~ José Raúl Capablanca, in Pablo Morphy by V. F. Coria and L. Palau.

"Morphy was the first positional player who, unlike his Romantic rivals, understood the strategic basis for attack. He wrote nothing more than a few game notes and played fewer than seventy-five serious games. But his exploitation of open lines prepared the way for Steinitz's scientific treatment of closed positions and the era of modern chess." ~ Richard Réti

"What was the secret of Morphy's invincibility? I think it was a combination of a unique natural talent and brilliant erudition. His play was the next, more mature stage in the development of chess. Morphy had a well-developed 'feeling for position', and therefore he can be confidently regarded as the 'first swallow' - the prototype of the strong 20th century grandmaster." ~ Garry Kasparov (2003). On My Great Predecessors.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, if you will not take my word for it, how about some of these world champions

[b]"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that the greatest stylist has been Morphy. Whence the reason, 0th century grandmaster." ~ Garry Kasparov (2003). On My Great Predecessors.[/b]

These quotes seem to prove both of our statements.

His lack of finesse for closed positions, and yet his style being a
strong influence over his dictation of positions. My understanding
based on the beginning of this discussion of the authors thoughts
on "Positional" thought, was more towards closed seemingly more
difficult to read positions. Therefore I still stand fast and state that
Steinitz (as in your own quotes would suggest) was the master of this
art. I also stand by to say that each and every player has more to
learn based on standard principle of his writings, than any from Morphy.

There can be no doubt that Morphy had an understanding of positional
elements. Each player has this, however his strength wasn't the
elements of the position. His strength was understanding the basic
activity and flow of his personal design's which would lead him to his
"combonational" persuits. Indeed he understood his positions, but
take note, that his positions were typically open, and certainly tactical.

-GIN