When I play chess i like quiet positions, or rather positions which are free from
complications, you know the thing, creating targets against backward pawns etc I don't
really like it when my opponents refuse to play positionally and simply sharpen the
game for its own sake. The reasons for this are two fold, one runs the risk of tactically
succumbing to some cheapo and it takes greater effort to formate plans plans when
there are scant static positional features because of a lack of pawns and one instead
must try to work with much more abstract dynamic factors and even tactics!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
When I play chess i like quiet positions, or rather positions which are free from
complications, you know the thing, creating targets against backward pawns etc I don't
really like it when my opponents refuse to play positionally and simply sharpen the
game for its own sake. The reasons for this are two fold, one runs the risk of tactically
...[text shortened]... ns and one instead
must try to work with much more abstract dynamic factors and even tactics!

I find the Indian formations can lead to slightly slower positional games, but like SG said, there's no sure fire way to avoid open tactical positions. What openings do you play apart from the English?

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
I find the Indian formations can lead to slightly slower positional games, but like SG said, there's no sure fire way to avoid open tactical positions. What openings do you play apart from the English?