Originally posted by pawndevourerIts possible. Here is one well-known example:
can you play positionally with an aggressive line like the sicilian?
[Event "09, London"]
[Site "09, London"]
[Date "1982.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Anatoli Karpov"]
[Black "Anthony Miles"]
[ECO "B76"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "75"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7
7. f3 O-O 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. g4 Be6 10. O-O-O Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Qa5
12. a3 Rab8 13. h4 Rfc8 14. Nd5 Qxd2+ 15. Rxd2 Bxd5 16. exd5
a6 17. Be2 Nd7 18. f4 Nc5 19. Rh3 Rc7 20. Re3 b5 21. Bxg7 Kxg7
22. Rd4 a5 23. b4 Na4 24. bxa5 Nc3 25. Bf1 Kf8 26. Kb2 Rbc8
27. Kb3 Rc5 28. a6 Nxd5 29. Rxd5 Rxd5 30. Rc3 Rd8 31. Rc7 Rd1
32. Bxb5 e5 33. a7 exf4 34. Rb7 Rb1+ 35. Ka4 Rxb5 36. Rxb5 f3
37. Rb8 f2 38. Rxd8+ 1-0
Also 2.c3 in Sicilian leads to positional play.
Originally posted by pawndevourerI like opponents like you. You think you play good and solid positional chess, but sooner or later you'll make some inaccurate moves and I bust in with spectacular tactical shots.
i favor more positional chess as i like the feel of slowly "crushing" the opponent. similar to karpov's style.. ^_^
but sometimes when the opponent is too weak i use tactics to quickly finish him off... 😀
Originally posted by pawndevourerI'm having a hard time grasping what exactly 'positional' play is. Every position has something at least somewhat tactical to it, whether your setting up tactics or defending against them or even executing them. aren't positional moves really just the ones that set up the tactical ones?
i favor more positional chess as i like the feel of slowly "crushing" the opponent. similar to karpov's style.. ^_^
but sometimes when the opponent is too weak i use tactics to quickly finish him off... 😀
Originally posted by ih8sensexample
I'm having a hard time grasping what exactly 'positional' play is. Every position has something at least somewhat tactical to it, whether your setting up tactics or defending against them or even executing them. aren't positional moves really just the ones that set up the tactical ones?
Game 3386034
I think its when one side plays with full intention on getting strong position - then tactics to win. Maybe the immortal game is an example too.
Originally posted by ih8sensIt's basically the immediacy of win/loss that determines the degree of tactical vs positional character in a game. In a positional game, though tactical nuances exist, there are fewer immediately exploitable targets. The tactics are relatively easier to parry and therefore coming up with a plan of development is important. In an equal, tactical game a target rich environment exists for both sides to conduct attacks where one slip is decisive. It's less a matter of planning and more of surviving by creating and parrying threats.
I'm having a hard time grasping what exactly 'positional' play is. Every position has something at least somewhat tactical to it, whether your setting up tactics or defending against them or even executing them. aren't positional moves really just the ones that set up the tactical ones?
Originally posted by ih8sensA positional game would be one where each player is trying to establish long term small advantages (bishop on open diagonal, strong outpost for knights, rooks on open file, infiltration of 1 or more rooks to the 7th), whereas in a tactical game players are trying to generate shorter term advantages for immediate gain.
I'm having a hard time grasping what exactly 'positional' play is. Every position has something at least somewhat tactical to it, whether your setting up tactics or defending against them or even executing them. aren't positional moves really just the ones that set up the tactical ones?
There may come a point in a positional game, that you are presented with more tactical shots because of the strength of your position (unassailable advanced knight, complete incontestable rook control of an open file, bishop control of a long diagonal). Because you control more squares, you have more points from which to generate forks, pins, etc.
D
I think tactics are always there, they are always influencing the flow of the game. In a positional game, tactics are not immediatley available but a good player will see how certain exchanges will bring them about. This tactical possibility will influence what moves are made and why, even in a positional struggle.
I also think that the ultimate goal of queening a pawn is always there and is part of a positional struggle as well. You don't want to trade away your pieces unless you can get to an endgame where you can queen a pawn, this also is always influencing the play of good players as they can see what exchanges will bring about this position for either side.
As long as there are pieces on the board (other than pawns and kings) there will be tactical possibilities. Tactics are what makes pieces so dangerous... other than the obvious movement of them... and as long as there are pawns on the board there will be positional elements as well. It is a matter of deciding which type of play is more dangerous to your opponent and benificial to you. If you can sacrifice your pawns for some tactical fireworks, then it is worth it to play tactical rather than positional. If your opponent can defend those tacitcs it is worth it to keep your pawns and play positional, slowly creating an advantageous position that will either create winning tactics or a winning endgame... so what I'm saying is there are tactics and positional possibilities in all games.
chess is made of tactics.
so I think the opposition isn't between positional and tactical. that should be wrong. It could only be between positional and materialistic play, and open positions vs closed positions. because tactics is the base ground for BOTH of them.
if there are 2 ways leading to mate for white, and one is slow and "squeezing" and the other is fast and crushing, the slow one is simply worse.
Originally posted by diskamylyes, but the style of positional and tactical lend themselves to positional and materialistic, closed and open, because some players feel more comfortable in these positions and thus, with that style of play... winning is about bringing your opponent out of their comfort zone and then leading them down a path that brings them to defeat. This can involve creating a closed or open position, with positional or materialistic play. But on the whole, I agree with what you are saying. Tactics is the base of both... and in my opinion there isn't "2 ways" leading to mate... there is a million ways to draw, and each has its own dynamics combining aspects of both positional and tactical play.
chess is [b]made of tactics.
so I think the opposition isn't between positional and tactical. that should be wrong. It could only be between positional and materialistic play, and open positions vs closed positions. because tactics is the base ground for BOTH of them.
if there are 2 ways leading to mate for white, and one is slow and "squeezing" and the other is fast and crushing, the slow one is simply worse.[/b]
"Tactics are the watchdogs of strategy."
I agree with much of what Ragnorak said; the small advantages of strategy, such as creating isolated/doubled pawns for your opponent, controlling a good diagonal for your bishop, finding an unthreatened home for your knight, doubling up rooks on an open rank, etc. can eventually build up to more tactical positions as the advantages build up.
I just finished a game where i think i used a little of both positional & tactics. Would you consider move 45 positional? It loses me 1 point but removes the threats. And let's me more easily push my pawns to queening square. So i lose point but in the end an extra queen.
Was this positional game you'd say or more tactics? Maybe i'm more positional player? I'm not sure...I prefer tactics though to be honest. Well, at least i think i do. 🙂
Game 3689843
-- Paul
Originally posted by Pavlo87Seems to me slightly more tactical than positional.
I just finished a game where i think i used a little of both positional & tactics. Would you consider move 45 positional? It loses me 1 point but removes the threats. And let's me more easily push my pawns to queening square. So i lose point but in the end an extra queen.
Was this positional game you'd say or more tactics? Maybe i'm more positional player? ...[text shortened]... actics though to be honest. Well, at least i think i do. 🙂
Game 3689843
-- Paul
This could be very wrong, but from my understanding, positional games usually stay pretty even materially until the end. However, that may not be the case with all positional games. Anyway, nice comeback, and a good game.