Playing styles

Hello world,

I wonder if someone could take the time to explain for me the following terms?

Players are often classified as positional, tactical or strategic players. What does this really mean?

Thanks,  Mike

Which type of player is best??

Today's top players can't afford to belong exclusively to one style anymore, and although some players are described as truly universal, today's top players tend toward a universal style.

While no one is purely one way or another (even a tactical player can make strategic choices), there are defining characteristics between the styles.

Tactical players thrive on combinations and play for open positions (pawns in the center not locked) and play for complications where in general the winner will be the one who can out-calculate the other.  Tactical players look for forcing lines that give their opponent no chance to escape material loss or checkmate.  Tactical players live to detonate a position with a brilliant move that wins immediately.

Positional players tend to favor closed games where there is more maneuvering.  Endgames by their nature are very positional, and usually positional players enjoy endgames as well.  Rather than winning with a combination, a positional player may saddle his opponent with a weakness and then play against the weakness for tens of moves to finally win.  Throughout a game often these weaknesses are exchanged eg a backward pawn for space, then space for initiative and finally initiative for a winning endgame.  Positional players like to grind their opponents down.

Depending on who you ask, there's no difference between positional and strategic and they may even be used interchangeably.  However in an interview with Kramnik back when he was world champion he had this to say about previous champion Petrosian:

"There is something mysterious about Petrosian. He was a brilliant tactician and an excellent strategic player, although his positional understanding was not as good as Smyslov's."

One way to see it is that tactical and positional play are two sides of the same coin while strategic is more of an overall plan for the game, a grand scheme so to speak.  In the way that it could be said calculation is by itself a skill outside of style so too is strategic thinking.

Although there are players who rely more on calculation and others who use more intuition, but that's a bit off topic.

First...I would say strategic and positional players are one and the same...two words describing the same thing.  Positional players pay more attention to putting their pieces in places which will gain them a long term advantage.  They tend to trade off pieces reluctantly.  Pawn structure and opening theory is very important.

Tactical players tend to like exciting games with lots of killing and mayhem.  When they look at the board they search for combinations of moves that will gain them advantage.  Their focus tends to be short term.  They favor traps and tricks that they can spring on their opponent.

The correct approach is not to favor one or the other but be both and let one compliment the other.  If you think positionally initially and get your pieces where they are most effective and set up a sturdy pawn structure, tactics will present themselves to you.

A simplistic way to put it --

• Tactical players try to win by having more pieces.

• Positional players try to win by making the pieces they do have more valuable than their opponent's.

The key point to remember is that to really improve in chess you have to be both..

 Simple but pretty clear. I like it.

For sure.  Tactical players may love to attack, but an attack is positional in nature, a locked center, superior force, mobility, or space are all key components to a successful attack.  Sacrifice and initiative are two positional concepts close to any tactical player's heart.

Positional players may like deliberate maneuvers, but "tactics flow from a superior position" and ultimately a positional player will have to cash in with a combination or mating attack... even if it is by playing out an endgame and queening a pawn.  And again, sacrifices and combinations are very positional.

I believe in the unorthodox!!

Play Open Chess and take some risks!

 This is an interesting question, and an old one. What does it mean to be described as a tactical/positional/strategical  player ?  First, I agree with an earlier poster that strategical and positional are basically the same . I also agree that a player who is known as a tactical player may also play positional chess very well ( Tal for example and Kasparov ) and a player known as a positional player may be very strong in tactics ( Petrosian and Karpov ) . So, how do they get labeled as one or the other ? Its by the choices they make in a position in which they can decide if the game goes down tactical or positional paths...... they have a choice and they will choose what they are most comfortable with, either the positional, or the tactical path and these choices get them labeled as a positional or tactical player. Spassky was one of the first world chaqmpions that I have seen described as a " universal " player. This meant that in such positions where he had choice he would sometimes choose the more tactical lines and sometimes the more positional about equally in his games. Petrosian would choose the positional path predominately and Tal would choose the tactics more... this is how I understand " tactical " and " positional " players. The description doesnt mean they cannot play the other way , it just indicates the way they generally choose to play when given positions with a choice...

Reb. Your answer helped me with a question that's been bothering me. There often seems to be that defining moment/decision in a game. Your post helps me articulate the question/answer.

Thank you all for the many helpful comments. Those who wrote long articles were all great!

Mike