Understanding beats Tactics, but tactics needs a strong presence in lower levels

Agreed....as a USCF A player.  Games even at that level are decided by mistakes, blunders, and tactics.

No Need. I you're an 1800-USCF player, you make plenty of mistakes. Otherwise, you would be a 2200-USCF player

Your blitz rating is extremely low for an 1800. 

I know that I make mistakes, the're not tactical though.

You're barley class b, on one of your older accounts you admitted that you were only 1600. 

1800 players who claim that they no longer make tactical errors are simply delusional. Attend the first round of any major open tournament (assuming we get to have big open tournaments again). In the first round, the 1800 players usually get paired up against higher rated players, and those games regularly ends with the 1800-player getting mated or losing material due to a tactical oversight

Even magnus makes tactical blunders against stockfish, against a 2800 not so much.

On that account, you admitted that you only used to be 1800.

Once in a while I play without blunders in 3|0, here is an example:

My apologies to the OP.  This is what happens when one of drmrboss's lackeys gets a hold of someones thread.

@MandelbrotZoom
I don't think most players understand that at the level of 1800 it is much rarer to see tactical mistakes, as the intution of tactics and positional play is very solid at the level. I have played and beaten a 1900(blitz on this website) and a couple of experts in real life. The difference between play though is definitley positional, tactical efforts are more or less the same and it doesn't matter to much to the person who has the better tactical knowledge but more of how they use it in the right position.

Therefore that is another reason why positional play is the leader of tactics as the position only nees tactics when it calls for the tactics and only from there can they be implemented. 

I have seen some games that some people from the 1800's have made minimal mistakes(especially over the board), I wouldn't say an 1800 is to much different from a 2000 only in the matter that positional play needs to be improved.

On the other hand it is also true that 1800 and even through master level are still capable of mistakes and many of them on a bad day. However we are all human and of course mistakes will happen and some will include more on one day and less on another day but the whole objective of the matters is to be also consitent as well. Consistency only comes if you understand what you are doing and then once you understand it allows better moves to be played.

Nothing can keep consistency better than improving positional play and the knowledge within positions(such as in endgame play and opening knowledge). There have been many a time when players such as Tal wasn't consistent because he was relying to heavily on calculation and tactics when simply the positions sometimes didn't call for it. Therefore improving posiitonal play is vital as it is something that can help you in all positions, but tactics and calculations is limited until you have the superior position or your opponent makes a blunder or weakness etc... 

The main point is that the goal is always to improve the position and from there find tactics but never make them your main motif as if it is the game will never be consistent and also it won't be an effective style of play since it is only useful in certain positions. Also calculating is not a skill that humans can keep doing forever as in old age the mind is deteriorated like I said before and it cannot do the same things like before in earlier years. Someone that loves to play souly on tactics and calculation likes to play chess for fun and for good competition, but to be on the big leagues it takes a lot more than that.

And yes like I said before rarely it seems that a 1800 would have tactical mistakes(unless it was in blitz or bullet). Usually from 1800-3000 positional play outranks everything and that is why it is very important to be good at in so you make less positional and critical mistakes or blunders in a position. As when a position is made it can be improved, however when a position is being destroyed it cannot be fixed but it can be maitained. Therfore it is good to know the positional efforts and therefore it allows you to detect tactics both on your end and the opponents end. This was just an example of how positional play can help you detect and see what is ahead of the 8 ball as if you are looking at the game in a strategical/positional sense there would be less and less reason to calculate in many positions.  

Likewise though tactics is needed exploit when it is ok to exploit: like to win material, get advantages or make forced moves/checkmates to make the game end quicker and in a more efficient way. So both are needed no doubt however one cannot go to far without mastering positional play unless you are some type of tactical mastermind(Like Mikail Tal, Topalav, Keres) or you are a Computer(Like Stockfish; so) So knowing this I can say that (95-99%) most players will need to be very strong in positional play to be a master or some type of contendor on a higher level(such as GM, Super GM or be the World Champion)...

This is just another reason why positional play is such a big factor and why tactics is needed at the lower levels and to make a bigger stride to higher levels in which coordination can be found but positional play will be needed to dominate and win games based on skill, ability and study in it throughout the master levels and even the levels of a 800-1200.

@KetonOn1963 

It is ok I realize we all might have different opinions, it is fine just hopefully everyone can calm down and be in a better place.

That is a lot of writing!

Probably one of the longest non-spam ones on these forums!

Wow!

True, but sometimes there are those people who are just positionally or just tactically strong...

But it is true also that we need both in our arsenal, however when it comes to it, it always seems like the positional players are successful while the tactically dominate players are not as close to the positional players. 

For example most of the Super GM's are positionally dominant, but a lot of the tactical masters are International Masters or GM's and although that is definitley still high it doesn't seem like they would be world champion or even fide world cup title contendors an due to that, this is why positional play seems more dominant and is more dominant.

But both are definitley neccessary and that is why at lower levels tactics need to be mastered or at least most people need to be afluent/proficient in it, and then when they get to 1800/1900+ that is when I think positional understanding determines many games, even with lack of a tactical oversight... 

@Lc0_1

Thanks for your support/compliment.

I try to spread the knowledge and the belief on how to get better in the best way and how to adjust a person's game the best truly. So every word I did was very valuable to me(and hopefully others) because I never know, perhaps one day it could help someone and get them to a higher level and then this forum would've done its job. 

Like reading the book "WAR & PEACE"...lol

@NickawampusLeroy

Interesting what is War and Peace about?

I've heard of such books as the Art of War, Six Secret Teachings and The book of five rings...

However War and Peace is different, sounds cool to me!

Classic book on my shelf not read yet but many pages.

hehe remind me of some of my books in my book shelf, but have read many but many more to go!

If you look at his stats you will see that he has only played a few games and has won every one of them