Please define what a Positional player is? and what a Tactical player is?
Openings for Different player styles
Sort:
Oldest
Jan 11, 2016
0
#3
Play open positions, not closed positions. Against d4 play the Greunfeld for example. Against e4, play e5, sicilian, and sometimes Scandinavian! These are just examples of openings that will give you the open positions you need for tactical play.
Tactical Player vs 1.e4 : Latvian Gambit
Tactical Player vs 1.d4 : Dutch Defense
Positional Player vs 1.e4 : 1...e5 2...Nc6 Ruy Lopez, Italian, Scotch ...
Positional Player vs 1.d4 : 1..Nf6 2...e6 3...d5
Universal Player vs 1.e4 or 1.d4 : Caro Kann, Modern Defense
Benonis, Scandinavians, Grunfelds, Alekhine etc then you can explore on your own many more openings, but my recommendations are consistent and profitable in results.
Jan 11, 2016
0
#5
There really is no "Positional" or "Tactical" opening. It's like Wive's Tales.
Openings can only really be separated by risk factor. The higher the risk, the less it takes to lose (often a single mistake), but it also puts your opponent at greater risk and the probability of a draw goes down. There are lower risk openings that allow for at least a moderate error to occur and you still won't get blasted off the board. Your position will be worse, but you aren't completely dead.
You can't elimiate tactics or strategy/positional play from a game and expect to succeed. I've had extremely wild Slav games and long, grueling, positional Najdorf games. There's no getting around it.
That said, you can't avoid either type of game, and have to adapt to what is currently being played.
For example, the Petroff and the Berlin Defense are fairly low risk, but to play them, you must also be able to deal with the King's Gambit, which is a high risk opening.
Even as White, you have no control. People make the mistake of saying that e4 is high risk and tactical and that d4 is low risk and positional. Last time I looked, a Berlin (an e4 opening) is far less tactical and far less risky than the Leningrad Dutch (a d4 opening).
Even post 6 is wrong. I've had numerous positional games in the Dutch, especially the Stonewall or Classical (i.e. 3...e6 instead of 3...g6).
ThrillerFan wrote:
There really is no "Positional" or "Tactical" opening. It's like Wive's Tales.
Openings can only really be separated by risk factor. The higher the risk, the less it takes to lose (often a single mistake), but it also puts your opponent at greater risk and the probability of a draw goes down. There are lower risk openings that allow for at least a moderate error to occur and you still won't get blasted off the board. Your position will be worse, but you aren't completely dead.
You can't elimiate tactics or strategy/positional play from a game and expect to succeed. I've had extremely wild Slav games and long, grueling, positional Najdorf games. There's no getting around it.
That said, you can't avoid either type of game, and have to adapt to what is currently being played.
For example, the Petroff and the Berlin Defense are fairly low risk, but to play them, you must also be able to deal with the King's Gambit, which is a high risk opening.
Even as White, you have no control. People make the mistake of saying that e4 is high risk and tactical and that d4 is low risk and positional. Last time I looked, a Berlin (an e4 opening) is far less tactical and far less risky than the Leningrad Dutch (a d4 opening).
Even post 6 is wrong. I've had numerous positional games in the Dutch, especially the Stonewall or Classical (i.e. 3...e6 instead of 3...g6).
Always a refreshing change to see someone post common sense.
you are right, the dutch has many positional lines, Neil McDonald in " Play the Dutch" because of this problem , he tries to find more dynamic ideas in that lines and in my opinion he gets his aim .
The London System 2.Bf4 (without g3 logically ) probably is the only headache to the tactical player in Dutch and in any defense with black against this universal system.
Jan 11, 2016
0
#8
Viulindar wrote:
you are right, the dutch has many positional lines, Neil McDonald in " Play the Dutch" because of this problem , he tries to find more dynamic ideas in that lines and in my opinion he gets his aim .
The London System 2.Bf4 (without g3 logically ) probably is the only headache to the tactical player in Dutch and in any defense with black against this universal system.
The basic rule of thumb is that the Leningrad is horrible against 2.Bf4 if White hasn't played Nf3 yet - Known as the Dangerfield Attack, mainly because it gets no respect.
After 1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3, 3...g6? is a horrible move. White has 4.h4! and Black is in massive trouble.
It's been a while since I played this, but if memory serves me right, Leningrad players should play 3...d6 against this, and after 4.Nf3, only then is 4...g6 "ok". But I do know that you absolutely must wait until Nf3 is played if you are going to play that way against 2.Bf4.
Thanks to everyone for the advice!
Jan 12, 2016
0
#10
Latvian Gambit is unsound. Play Schliemann defense for tactical vs 1. e4.
Follow German_MagnusCarlsen advice. I play those defense and I got tactical play against white in majority of the games.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Some people say that low risk openings are usually closed positions and open positions tend to have a higher risk factor. Do you agree with this statement?
There really is no "Positional" or "Tactical" opening. It's like Wive's Tales.
Openings can only really be separated by risk factor. The higher the risk, the less it takes to lose (often a single mistake), but it also puts your opponent at greater risk and the probability of a draw goes down. There are lower risk openings that allow for at least a moderate error to occur and you still won't get blasted off the board. Your position will be worse, but you aren't completely dead.
You can't elimiate tactics or strategy/positional play from a game and expect to succeed. I've had extremely wild Slav games and long, grueling, positional Najdorf games. There's no getting around it.
That said, you can't avoid either type of game, and have to adapt to what is currently being played.
For example, the Petroff and the Berlin Defense are fairly low risk, but to play them, you must also be able to deal with the King's Gambit, which is a high risk opening.
Even as White, you have no control. People make the mistake of saying that e4 is high risk and tactical and that d4 is low risk and positional. Last time I looked, a Berlin (an e4 opening) is far less tactical and far less risky than the Leningrad Dutch (a d4 opening).
Even post 6 is wrong. I've had numerous positional games in the Dutch, especially the Stonewall or Classical (i.e. 3...e6 instead of 3...g6).
Fiveofswords wrote:
Thanks!
really the bottom line is that what is difficult for one person may not be difficult for another. the berlin and petroff are usually easy enough for world class calculators against world class calculators. mistakes tend to be more fatal therefore in theory mistakes are easier to find if you are capable of calculating a few moves ahead. nevertheless i certainly have seen examples of strong gms simply losing to tactics...even 'simple' 3 or 4 move tactics in both openings. reputations of openings tend to be a bit absurd and a huge amount if it is simply bangwagon philosophy. some positions are very dangerous for a player who is not calculating accurately when the opponent is. some positions are very dangerous for a player who isnt planning accurately when the opponent is.
If you are a positional player, what should you play as white? What should you play against 1.e4 and 1.d4 as black?
If you are a tactical player, what should you play as white, and against 1.e4 and 1.d4 as black?