Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 00:15:56 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
1. If positional play is what we do when we have nothing specific to be gained by immediate tactics, then tactics will never put positional play out of business. Positional play is steering the game into more and more favorable positions--when tactical wins are not immediately apparent. There are zillions of unavoidable positions we encounter where we have no tactical wins at hand, and only positional considerations to guide us until actual winning tactics arise. Tactics, however, can help steer positions into better positions, without resulting in immediate material gains. Tactics are used by positional players to achieve positional goals deemed best. And positional considerations can help avoid opponent's tactical chances while improving our own. So positional play may lead to, and have the goal, of ultimately producing winning tactical play for self, with no possible good tactical play giving the opponent counterchances! Thus, tactics & positional play are simply opposite sides of the same coin. 2. Good positional play leads to good tactics! Rather, good tactics come out of a good position. The concepts are somewhat interchangeable, somewhat distinct--they certainly go together in many respects! There are no absolutes, however, as some would like to believe. 3. One trend (among the best players) is to determine when concrete (tactical) considerations take precedence over general positional considerations. Or when Positional considerations A, B & C take precedence over Positional considerations D & E. One might say positional play is discarded where tactics supercede positional considerations. I say, on the other hand, that positional understanding is being modified, broadened & improved. Understanding the balance of 'tradeoffs' among many competing positional & tactical considerations is critical. Example--When are doubled pawns bad? When are they good? When are they irrelevant? Obviously if you are able to get to your opponent's king (or other major weakness) before your doubled pawns become a critical factor, then they are not so important in the overall assessment of the position, not so critical to avoid in the first place! 4. The search for exceptions in general positional understanding is where the surprises lay--where the imbalances in position (and in opponents's judgement!) can lead to advantage for the better (more understanding) player. The player who takes all general considerations as mere guidelines, not binding, and formulates instead a creative plan based on sound judgement and broad understanding of all the features of the current position, will be most successful in the long run. 5. Often, it is best to ignore one type of positional consideration (the creation or avoidance of doubled pawns, for example) to achieve a different positional goal (pieces aimed toward the opponent's kingside, for example) When the judgement for doing this is accurate, the results will often show the mundane plan is trounced by the more astute plan. The exception will prove that blind adherence to general (normal) positional rules in all cases is folly--and impossible, since one positional consideration often cuts across another, and both are not resolvable simultaneously. 6. BOTTOM LINE--Proper positional play does not ignore tactics and the possibility of tactics. Good tactical play often leads only to positional improvement (not immediate material gain). Thus both are entwined, both are necessary, neither is susceptible of separate and clear delineation. --Steve
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.