You cannot reason with trolls. They are not here to play chess or improve their chess skills, they are just here trolling, and writing useless comments, or posting childish images.
And even worse, there are some trolls who don't even know how to post pictures!
Let's hope one day chess.com gets rid of trolls, wasting forum space with the same images over and over, and writing ridicolous comments.
No, dude!; Without trolls, who would we make fun of?
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the one here trying to argue.
The best troll of all, calling people trolls.
Sadly, fishing in this thread is like noodling in a sewage slew.
Tactics is about literally seeing what's going to happen. Strategy is making an educated judgment...
+1
"Strategy requires thought; tactics requires observation". - World Champion Max Euwe
"He (Euwe) meant that a strategic plan is created by combining positional features involving material, space, piece mobility, and pawn structure over a long span of moves, whereas a tactic is not so much a creation as an observation that can be implemented to take advantage of a short-term opportunity." - GM Yasser Seirawan - Winning Chess Strategies
99.9% of my games are played fast, 20 0 and under, with a high priority placed on alertness to mistakes made by my opponents (observation), and then hitting them over the head with tactics. According to Max Euwe, I do very little thinking when playing chess. Ouch!
When I do think about positional chess, Karpov's boa constrictor playing style comes to mind, slowly taking away squares from his opponents. Players who are getting the squeeze can try to exchange pieces to gain space for greater mobility, but good luck.
I wonder if space takes precedence over the other elements in chess? What good are chess pieces if they can’t move?
Wow. Aren't there any moderators on this site? :D
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !! 
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !!
Capablanca was a genius, and to me at least it is obvious that strategy is extremely important. But Capa was also a great tactician! He wasn't a flashy speculative tactician, but an extremely accurate one. To be a strong player you have to be good in both strategy and tactics.
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !!
Capablanca was a genius, and to me at least it is obvious that strategy is extremely important. But Capa was also a great tactician! He wasn't a flashy speculative tactician, but an extremely accurate one. To be a strong player you have to be good in both strategy and tactics.
WELL-STATED : My point is among Strong Players Tactics flow from a Strategically Superior Position that is the bottom line 
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !!
Capablanca was a genius, and to me at least it is obvious that strategy is extremely important. But Capa was also a great tactician! He wasn't a flashy speculative tactician, but an extremely accurate one. To be a strong player you have to be good in both strategy and tactics.
WELL-STATED : My point is among Strong Players Tactics flow from a Strategically Superior Position that is the bottom line
Absolutely. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is really hard to disagree with this. It is true that sometimes the player who has the strategically lost position will create messy complications and succeed in winning or drawing the game. But that is due to tactical failure(s) of the player who originally had the strategically won position.
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !!
Capablanca was a genius, and to me at least it is obvious that strategy is extremely important. But Capa was also a great tactician! He wasn't a flashy speculative tactician, but an extremely accurate one. To be a strong player you have to be good in both strategy and tactics.
WELL-STATED : My point is among Strong Players Tactics flow from a Strategically Superior Position that is the bottom line
Unfortunately due to trolls (Oinkdumb is an example more than 15000 points prove he is a troll) maybe you have skipped the messages which were speaking upon the fact that computers don't know positional play, and they beat the world champion giving him a pawn and move (Rybka, and Houdini can do that). Now if your statement is true, then how do you explain that a computer program, written by someone who is surely NOT a GM or a genius of positional play, can beat all the best players in the world?
Further if you had studied Capablanca endings with a computer, you would see the computer often gives "??" to moves played by Capablanca, showing that he didn't even play well the endgame. But again, this is just a proof of tactics above all, not positional skills. And if you were honest you would show some games played against Rybka or Houdini where the GM was able to outsmart them positionally. But up to now, also the trolls, didn't post anything like that, apart useless jpegs.
Computers do now have the ability to play strong positional chess. When you had that to their brute tactical ability you get a 3000 rated beast who can beat human world class grandmasters.
CAPABLANCA : He destroyed the greatest Tactical players the game of chess ever produced !! ONE loss in top flight tournament play over 10 years ( fact). Heck it only took the mighty ALKEHINE about 12 years to take the titile away from him. Capa was the genius of pure strategical ( positional) play and proves Silmans point : That Tactics develope From a Strategically Superior Position !! Those who argue about the value of strategy should be playing Checkers !!
Capablanca was a genius, and to me at least it is obvious that strategy is extremely important. But Capa was also a great tactician! He wasn't a flashy speculative tactician, but an extremely accurate one. To be a strong player you have to be good in both strategy and tactics.
WELL-STATED : My point is among Strong Players Tactics flow from a Strategically Superior Position that is the bottom line
Unfortunately due to trolls (Oinkdumb is an example more than 15000 points prove he is a troll) maybe you have skipped the messages which were speaking upon the fact that computers don't know positional play, and they beat the world champion giving him a pawn and move (Rybka, and Houdini can do that). Now if your statement is true, then how do you explain that a computer program, written by someone who is surely NOT a GM or a genius of positional play, can beat all the best players in the world?
Further if you had studied Capablanca endings with a computer, you would see the computer often gives "??" to moves played by Capablanca, showing that he didn't even play well the endgame. But again, this is just a proof of tactics above all, not positional skills. And if you were honest you would show some games played against Rybka or Houdini where the GM was able to outsmart them positionally. But up to now, also the trolls, didn't post anything like that, apart useless jpegs.
After reading that garbage all i can say is care for a game of CHECKERS !! 
A semantic dispute.
I play against computer chess programs and know that they can be set to play opening theory moves for as long as you want them to. So, it can look like two humans playing against each other for up to the first 20 moves, or more.
Question: After the first twenty moves, how are the computer programs selecting the next moves? Are they taking into account positional concepts, or just using brute force calculation, scanning 64 squares constantly.
As a side note, there have been many posts from different people with very negative categorizations about Silman. Gosh, I'm starting to wonder how is it possible to dislike him so much.
I'd like to tell all who share a similar opinion: Silman is an International Master. He is also a very, very popular chess author. Few people can achieve what he has achieved. Even if you disagree with him, you should respect him. Everyone has the right to have an opinion, so does Silman, and so do those who like his books. I believe that if you try to have a look at what he says, you will have much more benefit than from rejecting and sullying him.
What was the question again ? 
Question: After the first twenty moves, how are the computer programs selecting the next moves? Are they taking into account positional concepts, or just using brute force calculation, scanning 64 squares constantly.
Yes, there are positional concepts implemented in chess computers. Most of the algorithms do a search of possible move branches, come up with a position, evaluate it and then evaluate the move it arises from.
Here is a site that describes some concepts of chess programming:
http://www.frayn.net/beowulf/theory.html
Here is one about how computers can evaluate a position:
http://www.chessbin.com/post/Chess-Board-Evaluation.aspx
You may initially be surprised if you expected that computers don't care about strategy. But as long as chess is a strategic game and computers imitate human thinking (they can't come up with their own thinking; the difference is in efficiency), there should be no wonder chess programming contains strategy. Nowadays, computers and programming have evolved enough to allow strategy implementation. Only tactic-dependant programs (if there were such) are part of history, because they neither deplete a computer's and a programmer's abilities, nor do they satisfy contemporary requirements.
'quarki is my friend. He's not a troll, and he is a very smart kid. So lay off him.
However much I appreciate your concern, please don't tell them to stop; it's hilarious.