Originally posted by greenpawn34Well this seems like a a good place to throw out this quote....
I've yet to see this wonderful won game where no tactic of any kind
played it's part. You may not see them getting played OTB by the good guys.
But just under the surface you will find every 'positional threat' is backed up
Originally posted by greenpawn34While I'm a weak player, I do think at my level there are positional players and tactical players. I consider myself the former. I suck at the tactical puzzles, never enjoying them enough to care to do them. When I'm playing I usually try to look at longterm, putting my pieces in what I consider strong positions and then hoping they come together for tactical attacks later. @ "hoping"
Weak player v Weak player then the better tactician will win unless he out
tricks himself. Here the Kitchen Sink attack or any attack usually wins.
Originally posted by wormwoodI don't follow your logic here. I'm stronger positionally compared to my tactical ability. And I *do* struggle more in sharp openings as compared to slow maneuvering battles, hence the choice of opening can be a significant factor. And it doesn't need to involve an objectively inferior choice - there are many sharp openings which are objectivity fine.
objectively speaking, the only way you're going to force a positional player off his game, is by making inferior moves HOPING he'll miss something
Originally posted by greenpawn34I agree that a good positional player must be tactically sufficient. But it's also clear that some players are more naturally inclined towards one or the other. Let's not pretend that every good player is equally well rounded in both tactics and positional play - they are not. And players should play to their strengths. It's no accident that Kasparov played his chosen openings and approach, and Karpov did something completely different. i.e. different strengths and weaknesses in terms of positional and tactical ability
A good 'positional player' must also be a very good tactical player.
Originally posted by Varenkathat's a textbook subjective choice, based on a subjective view of your possible performance in a certain type of position, not on whether that position is objectively better or not.
In short, my opponent can choose to play towards my strengths or weaknesses, and there are objectively sound paths for both.
Originally posted by Varenkadifferent styles doesn't mean they couldn't do every aspect of chess equally well. it's just that a certain style allows to showcase different type of skills than some other style. throw a crazy tactical position at a karpov or kramnik, and they'll come out guns blazing. I understand karpov rarely got into trouble with tactics. in a way you could say that it means he was better at tactics than the guys who get into crazy tactical trouble all the time.
It's no accident that Kasparov played his chosen openings and approach, and Karpov did something completely different. i.e. different strengths and weaknesses in terms of positional and tactical ability
Originally posted by wormwoodNo it's not. If I analyse my opponent's games in advance and see that his results are much worse in sharp positions then that's an objective analysis because it's based on facts (i.e. concrete results) rather than my opinion. How can it be just my opinion if I have the statistics to prove it!
that's a textbook [b]subjective choice, based on a subjective view of your possible performance in a certain type of position[/b]