Answers.Body: <p>Chess Strategy contains a lot of principles.</p>
  <ul>
  <li>Tactics, like skewer and pin</li>
  <li>Basic principles, like attack the center</li>
  <li>Better positioning pieces and taking advantage of a position itself.</li>
  <li>and more.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Positional chess is a part of the strategical chess in my opinion, <strong>but</strong> a book on positional chess goes even deeper. A LOT deeper. You can sacrifice a whole piece and on some rare occasions a rook and a queen to set up a winning position. Positional chess books focus on teaching you how to see the full potential on a position. That is the difference.
  Tactical chess is a set of principles and tricks. Understanding the potential of a position though makes you evaluate a position better and opens your mind for another level of chess play.
  For instance, imagine you got an opponent king, and a lot of pawns and pieces around that king. You might be able to use opponents pieces as obstacles for their king to escape. It is like judo. Use opponent's strength to weaken them.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-18T15:19:02.357Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-07-19T00:45:23.623Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-07-19T00:45:23.623Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: George Eco
Answers.Body: <p>These terms overlap but should not be used interchangeably.</p>
  
  <p>"Positional" books tend to take positions from a game and explain a specific aspect, while "Strategy" books usually try to tie positional aspects together (this does not appear to be the case with Watson's book).</p>
  
  <p>An example of strategy would be choosing the "Exchange Ruy Lopez" as White with the idea of having 4 pawns against 3 on the king-side while Black's 4:3 on the Queen-side is crippled and can't force a passed pawn.   Then White just needs to trade all the pieces and have a won endgame. </p>
  
  <p>Understanding that Blacks pawns cannot force a passed pawn on their own is a positional aspect of the strategy.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-18T15:12:10.943Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-18T15:12:10.943Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Body: <p>If one master writes a book on <em>chess strategy</em> (example <a href="http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Secrets_of_Modern_Chess_Strategy.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>) and another writes a book on <em>positional chess</em> (example <a href="http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Secrets_of_Positional_Chess.html" rel="noreferrer">here</a>), are they writing more or less on the same subject?</p>
  
  <p>Do other major chess languages (if you happen to read any) like Russian, German, Spanish and/or French likewise circulate distinct terms for <em>chess strategy</em> and <em>positional chess?</em></p>
  
  <p>Usually in English, synonyms will bear some gradation in meaning, so a minor distinction to separate the two terms in question is expected. However, are the two synonymous at all? Suppose that the publisher had swapped the titles of the above two linked books. Would the swap have confused anyone?</p>
  
  <p>See also:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/13904/315">Chess strategy defined</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/9638/315">What is positional play in chess?</a></li>
  </ul>
  
Tags: <strategy><books><positional-play><terminology>
Title: Chess strategy versus positional chess
ThreadText: # Chess strategy versus positional chess
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-17)
  
  If one master writes a book on *chess strategy* (example [here](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Secrets_of_Modern_Chess_Strategy.html)) and another writes a book on *positional chess* (example [here](http://www.gambitbooks.com/books/Secrets_of_Positional_Chess.html)), are they writing more or less on the same subject?
  
  Do other major chess languages (if you happen to read any) like Russian, German, Spanish and/or French likewise circulate distinct terms for *chess strategy* and *positional chess?*
  
  Usually in English, synonyms will bear some gradation in meaning, so a minor distinction to separate the two terms in question is expected. However, are the two synonymous at all? Suppose that the publisher had swapped the titles of the above two linked books. Would the swap have confused anyone?
  
  See also:
  
  * [Chess strategy defined](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/13904/315)
  * [What is positional play in chess?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/9638/315)
  
  **Tags:** strategy, books, positional-play, terminology
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-03-18. Score: 4 | Accepted answer
  
  These terms overlap but should not be used interchangeably.
  
  "Positional" books tend to take positions from a game and explain a specific aspect, while "Strategy" books usually try to tie positional aspects together (this does not appear to be the case with Watson's book).
  
  An example of strategy would be choosing the "Exchange Ruy Lopez" as White with the idea of having 4 pawns against 3 on the king-side while Black's 4:3 on the Queen-side is crippled and can't force a passed pawn. Then White just needs to trade all the pieces and have a won endgame.
  
  Understanding that Blacks pawns cannot force a passed pawn on their own is a positional aspect of the strategy.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2019-03-18. Score: 1
  
  Chess Strategy contains a lot of principles.
  
  * Tactics, like skewer and pin
  * Basic principles, like attack the center
  * Better positioning pieces and taking advantage of a position itself.
  * and more.
  
  Positional chess is a part of the strategical chess in my opinion, **but** a book on positional chess goes even deeper. A LOT deeper. You can sacrifice a whole piece and on some rare occasions a rook and a queen to set up a winning position. Positional chess books focus on teaching you how to see the full potential on a position. That is the difference.
  Tactical chess is a set of principles and tricks. Understanding the potential of a position though makes you evaluate a position better and opens your mind for another level of chess play.
  For instance, imagine you got an opponent king, and a lot of pawns and pieces around that king. You might be able to use opponents pieces as obstacles for their king to escape. It is like judo. Use opponent's strength to weaken them.
  
  
  ---
  
  