Positionnal play ?

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Cheers Ajuin.

"Chess is 100% tactics."

Forgot who it was, It was of course Teichmann.

The other 1% is knowing how to set the pieces up for the start of a game.

Richard III - because he kept coming 3rd in a tournaments? (yes).

His tournament placings,yes,but I thought he kept coming 5th.

Too lazy to look it up.Let us settle on Richard the 4th 😉

You do realise you're now at 101% chess,yes?Must be some hangover 😕

Originally posted by Ajuin
His tournament placings,yes,but I thought he kept coming 5th.

Too lazy to look it up.Let us settle on Richard the 4th 😉

You do realise you're now at 101% chess,yes?Must be some hangover 😕

Maybe he means chess is 100% tactics but 1% of it is also positional? I like that idea actually, chess probably is 100% tactics at root but a certain proportion of moves can be decided on positional considerations.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Maybe he means chess is 100% tactics but 1% of it is also positional? I like that idea actually, chess probably is 100% tactics at root but a certain proportion of moves can be decided on positional considerations.

Here's a slightly different perspective - positional play is tactics delayed well into the future. In other words, poor positions lead to favorable tactics, almost inevitably. It may be a winning endgame in 30 moves where that weak pawn is finally picked off, or some cute mating combo becuase black igmored his development, but the winning move is a tactical shot of some sort. You get more of them with good positional play, though.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Excellent post.

Chess is 99% tactcis. (some great master said that, not me.).

I absolutely do not agree 🙂 . Why so much despise for the positional??

when you think of a move, you try to see forward, what are its implications through "hard" systematic analysis - as much as you can. BUT you always come to a point where you think: "and if I reach this POSITION, I will be fine". i.e. the horizon of any tactical reflection is a positional appreciation of the situation you expect to reach. and if you don't know how to evaluate this, i.e. if you do not have any positional ability, your tactical reflection just goes nowhere.

The neverending debate.

I will not bore you with my opinion.
I'll just say:

It's all chess 🙂

101% 🙂

We were rushing to catch a train and had Mrs. GP nipping my ears.

T v P

It's the same game and good tactical players make more positional and
stragteic moves than they care to admit.

And positional players (if there is such a thing) need to have the abilty to
spot and play the two move trick when the postion demands it, else they would
never win a game.

Somebody is going to try and post a tacticless game.
(you lot are so predictable). Don't it's been tried before.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 attacking the e-pawn. That tactics have already started.

Originally posted by Erekose
poor positions lead to favorable tactics, almost inevitably.

this is a new revelation.

Originally posted by Macpo
I absolutely do not agree 🙂 . Why so much despise for the positional??

when you think of a move, you try to see forward, what are its implications through "hard" systematic analysis - as much as you can. BUT you always come to a point where you think: "and if I reach this POSITION, I will be fine". i.e. the horizon of any tactical reflection is a position ...[text shortened]... i.e. if you do not have any positional ability, your tactical reflection just goes nowhere.

if you would listen to what we're saying, and not to what you apparently think we're saying, you'd understand that we do not despise the notion of positional chess. rather, we embrace it. all we are saying is that "positional" chess is just a name given to tactical chess which takes place far in advance of the combination itself. you are thinking of the final crushing combination as a tactic, we are saying that positional chess is a part of that combination, it just takes place long before. for example, you would think of moving a rook to an open file as a positional move, because generally speaking you are improving your position. this is also a part of one great big tactical ploy.

Originally posted by Big Orange Country
if you would listen to what we're saying, and not to what you apparently think we're saying, you'd understand that we do not despise the notion of positional chess. rather, we embrace it. all we are saying is that "positional" chess is just a name given to tactical chess which takes place far in advance of the combination itself. you are thinking ...[text shortened]... aking you are improving your position. this is also a part of one great big tactical ploy.

Sorry, but moving a rook to an open file without being able to list a number of move sequences, but aiming at maximising the chances for favourable continuations is a positional move in my book.

And to what GP just wrote above, where is the tactic involved in 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, knowing that there are thousands of pages of continuations documented from that position? Because an opening type is more prone to tactical play doesn't make the opening moves tactical! They are just opening moves.

Originally posted by Big Orange Country
all we are saying is that "positional" chess is just a name given to tactical chess which takes place far in advance of the combination itself. .

That is about as accurate as saying that tactics are just the specific maneuvers used to carry out one's strategy.

Originally posted by Exuma
I don't know if this is helpful or what you were looking for, but I liked this - quoted from http://www.chessville.com/instruction/instr_novice_introstrategy_intro.htm

Positional concept 1: A lead in development. This relates to time since a lead in development will eventually dissipate with time. The opening phase of the game is concerned with development ...[text shortened]... l save a discussion of technique for a later article, since it is beyond the scope of this one.

This was a great post! Thanks Exuma, very helpful.

Just to add a Tartakower quote to this discussion -

"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do."

Originally posted by greenpawn34
101% 🙂

We were rushing to catch a train and had Mrs. GP nipping my ears.

T v P

It's the same game and good tactical players make more positional and
stragteic moves than they care to admit.

And positional players (if there is such a thing) need to have the abilty to
spot and play the two move trick when the postion demands it, else they ...[text shortened]... been tried before.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 attacking the e-pawn. That tactics have already started.

1. e4

positional game has already started... you don't play h3. I really have the impression that it does not make sense to give priority to tactics.

Originally posted by Macpo
1. e4

positional game has already started... you don't play h3. I really have the impression that it does not make sense to give priority to tactics.

you know, the problem is, for me anyway in the past is that i simply look at a position and immediately start capturing everything in sight. It simply becomes a series of exchanges, i take, he takes, she takes, they take, everybody takes. I can honestly say, hand on heart that the strategical elements have provided me personally with the greatest enjoyment.

I had a great game against Zebano, it was in my measly opinion pure strategy, hardly any tactics until near the end. I wish i could show it but the game history is incomplete. It was a French defence, classical variation.

Strategy: exchange the dark squared bishop and use the positional technique of blockading on the dark squares, eventually trading down to my good knight v Zebanos bad bishop. I did not need to hardly do anything, the advantage was there almost from the moment the dark squared bishops left the board. I cannot relate how happy i was that this strategy worked, for he loves the French defence and is a stronger player than me.

yes i still make blunders, but strategy for me is where its at.

Why the labels? A move is a move is a move. Some moves win, some lose, some draw and some are unclear. Position and tactics can't be attributed to one move or any specific sequences of moves because they intertwine. You have a position or strategy in mind now you need the tactics to carry it out, thus one move or sequence of moves is positional and tactical at the same time.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Why the labels? A move is a move is a move. Some moves win, some lose, some draw and some are unclear. Position and tactics can't be attributed to one move or any specific sequences of moves because they intertwine. You have a position or strategy in mind now you need the tactics to carry it out, thus one move or sequence of moves is positional and tactical at the same time.

yes but one must recognise the positional dynamics before one can start to formulate a strategy.