21 Dec 06
haha.positional players would make advantages out of quiet moves and produce mostly a winning end game rather then taking risks and go for complicated positions.tactical players go for sharp lines which involves gambits for some other advantage.this is what it means,but personally i feel,even an average player knows something abt positional game.So a good player has to spot tacical combinatons.Hence in modern chess i feel a tactical player has better winning chances compared to a positional player.
21 Dec 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireThis is deffinately true.
Both are essential. You need to get a good position so your tactics work and no amount of great tactics matters if the end result is a bad position.
Positional play sets up winning opportunities. Tactics win it!
Edit: No one seems to be scared of the Kings Gambit anymore.
I have always felt that when someone says they are a tactical player, that usually means they don't understand the power of positional play. Likewise, when someone says they are a positional player, they are usually affraid of not being able to calculate the sharp open positions. I'm one of the latter ones.
I would think that it is best to be a well rounded player.