Accept the challenge I'm just sending and find out!
You might win, though...

An excellent answer =D  

After I inevitably lose, I'll try to analyze/post the game afterwards.

This isn't really true either. My friend is rating 2100 uscf and he blunders quite often especially in short games. You would be suprised

I agree and I think my biggest fault is, not taking my time.

... Man this would make a great topic for a blog... in fact, I'm going to write one.

Basically the #1 difference between the average 1600 and the average 1800 I play against is that a 1800 knows what a positional advantage is :P.  Doesn't stop them from playing for cheap traps like the 1600 but at least they're ready to start applying key concepts in their own games.  I still find 1800's are often easily crushed tactically, but at least they aren't giving the game away.

Excuse me? Crushed tactically? How very dare you...

And, although I know what a positional advantage is, I lack the ability to use such a thing victoriously.

Yeah, being one myself I think that an ~1800 player can reach that level based on a number of different combinations of strengths and weaknesses.  One might, as ih8sens suggested, be stronger positionally and weaker tactically, but from the sound of it I think that I'm more in Nytiks camp -- I play at the level I do because I'm stronger tactically than I am positionally.  There are many factors that all contribute to a player's strengths and weaknesses and a single number like their rating simply can't illustrate the complex dynamic between these factors which is why it's so hard to characterize.  Ultimately it's a player's style that tends to dictate what his strengths and weaknesses are -- not his rating.

tactics = microcosm?

positional/strategy = macrocosm?

Position/Strategy = preparation

Tactics = execution

The real difference between a 1600 and a 1400 is tactics.  Because, have you ever seen a class game decided by a minority attack?  No, there has to be a tactical flaw in a class game in order for a class player to win.  So the main difference is tactics.

Oh and endgames... chess.com offers some of the best Rook endgame lectures I've ever seen in my life (FM Daniel Rensch) ... I strongly suggest anyone with a diamond membership watches all 10. 

If you'd rather a book...Silman's Complete Endgame Course may have raised my rating 100 points+ :). 

oh and by the way ... http://blog.chess.com/ih8sens/the-difference-between ... a few aspects I've noticed.  by no means a comprehensive list but a good blog nonetheless.

I've said it many times before, but it bears repeating:  Silman's endgame book is outstanding.

This is a very interesting thread.  Thanks for starting it, KingCrimson!  Apologies if people find this way OT (off-topic), but I think this group would be interested in my question, and may be able/willing to help out.

I've been playing off and on for many, many years, but I'm just beginning to "get serious" about the game.  I have lots of chess books (some old, some new), and I love playing through famous games, following the commentary of an expert.  But I find it so frustrating to play these games on a "real" board.  I run a few position variations, and I need to set the board up all over again, often getting lost and having to go back a few pages, or even to the start of the game.  I get frustrated, it takes too long, and I close the book and turn on the TV. (grin)

I love the "Analysis Board" here on chess.com, because it allows me to run variations, simply click "Current Position," and I'm right back where I started from.  No fuss, no muss.  But unfortunately I think there's no way to access the AB when posting a game from the "outside." 

So, I'm wondering if there are software programs that easily do what I want.  Again, the goal is to set up a position (or a game), and to have the freedom to run variations and them come back to the original position automatically. 

This must be a ridiculously common problem, but I haven't seen it discussed anywhere.  Any thoughts and advice would be sincerely appreciated!

Ibiwisi ... I'd suggest sticking to a 'real board' ... you'll gradually get better and remebmering the original position.  With that knowledge your visualization will get better... and with that your calculation (the key behind both positional and tactical chess) will improve! 

... But if you'd rather be lazy there are all sorts of programs and computer engines that allow you to do exactly what you want.  A great GUI (Graphic User Interface) is BabasChess ... it's free.  Google it :).

I've suggested an enhancement that would allow the analysis board to be spawned from any game board on the site, including those in the forums.

A free form analysis board that is unattached would be great too -- with the ability to take any position you'd arrived at and "set as current" so that you could begin repeated analysis at will from that position.

At the end of the day, though, ih8sens is right -- I'd even take it one step further:  Forgoing the analysis board altogether will do wonders for your visualization.  If you want the gains here to translate across to an OTB situation this is probably the best course.

I'm in the 1600s (not chess.com) and I know a lot about positional play. In fact, tactics are probably one of my weaker points though I have been improving.

For our purposes you're in the 2200's :).  If you can hold that rating here at chess.com you can hold a USCF of approx. 1900.  Go to a tournament! :P.

I always use 2 boards now. One for the actual moves and one for the variations.

I should. It will take a long time for my rating to flesh out because I have access to one tournament a month where I am, sometimes longer.

Are you guys talking about your OTB rating or chess.com Online rating?