24 Jun 14
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI don't think there is such a thing as a positional player or a tactical player, if there are tactics on the board or we can create them, then fine, if not we play positionally.
Robbie C is a good player. IMO he lacks confidence and also he misjudges his playing strengths and weaknesses. I think he tries to be a positional player and he is a tactical player.
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's true; the terms 'positional' and 'tactical' are almost always presented as a dichotomy, as if you can't be both at the same time.
I don't think there is such a thing as a positional player or a tactical player, if there are tactics on the board or we can create them, then fine, if not we play positionally.
I think it's more a question of risk. Some people prefer a game in which they let their opponent take all the risks. These tend to be labeled 'positional' players. But even in the games of so-called 'attacking' players, you see them getting their pieces - at least, the ones needed for the attack - to good squares. This is also 'positional' play - coordinating one's forces to strike at the weak points in the enemy K position.
24 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Wow, let me educate you, 'suck', is an American colloquial term which in essence means to do something badly, it is never intended to literally mean to suck, as in a vacuum cleaner. Now you have learned something you can go away feeling happy.
To answer that question you must first find out why you put it in your mouth 😕
24 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI just don't think there is anything as a positional player or a tactical player, sure there are styles of play, but a game is never really truly either positional or tactical for their exists a symbiotic relationship between position and tactics. One can think of a player like Tigran Petrosian, who is generally considered a positional player, yet his games contain some truly beautiful tactics. This leads us to the conclusion that chess therefore is neither positional or tactical but something else, forceful i would suggest.
It's true; the terms 'positional' and 'tactical' are almost always presented as a dichotomy, as if you can't be both at the same time.
I think it's more a question of risk. Some people prefer a game in which they let their opponent take all the risks. These tend to be labeled 'positional' players. But even in the games of so-called 'attacking' play ...[text shortened]... sitional' play - coordinating one's forces to strike at the weak points in the enemy K position.