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

@DSmith42

We've already been over this... The positional masters have dominated the game of chess for years, and they will continue to I am not saying tactics is inferior as it is not. But it is just that positional understanding is very important is deemed more important in the higher levels of games for many reasons even previously stated in this forum.

Why?

Well, positional understanding is one of the objectives of the game. Besides checkmate the point is to get the most solid position and only then can tactics come. But tactics doesn't just come from nothing, it comes from deeper positional understanding, and due to this, that is how players such as Bobby, and Karpov and Kasparov too won there games as they were all strong positionally and it is no wonder they were champions. Of course Kasparov was great tactically but it was because of positional knowledge was he able to enhance his skill in tactics, such is the same for Bobby Fischer in many of his games as well.

Tactics is the form of an attack, but it doesn't build anything, if anything it only breaks down something whether it be a positional blunder on your part or the opponents part.  Tactics alone solves nothing as tactics are only used in positions that are positionally compromised. Moreover, people can become Grandmasters with strong positional understanding and average or even subpar tactics, however the same cannot be said for tactics. You cannot have strong ability for tactics and weak positional understanding, if this is the case you won't even become a NM because the fundamentals are not there, and they need to be there when you are at a higher level. 

Trust and believe my friend that both positional and tactics are needed, there is no doubt of that, but the topic is on why people in the lower levels need more tactical vision(2000 and below) and people that are 2000+ need that extra effeciency in positional understanding towards all of their game because if not then little or no improvement will be made. From my experience besides the lack of dedication and time that a person gives to chess, this is the different between a Amatuer and a Master in the game, primarily it is the positional part. 

And again average doesn't equal bad, people just assume average is not great because it is not what they are looking for of course people want to be expectional. However people that are GM's or IM's that have an average rating of tactics is still very strong compared to many other masters and GM's as well so average is not bad. However with subpar it is abnormal but for a person who has strong than normal levels of positional understanding(aka Karpov, Capablanca, Anand, Caruana) than the person in his group, trust me I would rather trust him to win than a person who is better tactically but average or subpar in positional understanding. Knowing this positional understanding in this game of chess is just dominant, and this is not being favored to anything this is just the truth.

Very and when I say very I mean it, very few players have reached such a high level without the proper positional understanding that is required to be on the top level. Let me give such an example as Alkehine(as you did my fellow member), yes he was a powerhouse in tactics and calculation, but because of his increased positional understanding he was made effective. Now without the positional understanding he will have the skill but it won't be applied as well and that is why you don't see people that are brilliant attackers/tacticians or calculators fighting for the world championship. Reason being is because again this fight of chess is about positions and about war of the better position and war of who can outlast and outplay, not who always who can scramble and make a mess. Again I will say it 15/16 World champions in some way shape or form where positionally dominant and 12 of them were just pure positional masterminds in the game and dominanted within there time. The only exception was Tal because he was just gifted with supreme calculation and was a mastermind in calculation, tactics and chess physcology, so truly in many games he played brilliantly and was a deserved champion during his time. However nobody else has come near close to Tal and these reason being is what is being explaned currently in this post.

There are to many ways to see how positional play impacts the game, and true that people have great tactical might but positional dominance wins their games. Another example comes from earlier with neural networks, it was so that Alpha Zero and Leela engines won because of their stronger positional play and they just had lesser variations and lesser calculations and straight up beat traditional engines in the heart of the middlegame. And once more this is not due to pure tactics it is due to positional understanding.

I could give seemingly thousands examples of why positional play is the factor that changes the game and molds it into the game when know today and is shaped up in top play. And from this I am not saying this with favortism I am saying this as a fact and objectively as this is true. I don't see any Grandmasters that have weak positionaly play, especially Super GM's. Again @Dsmith42 , the reason you may be losing is not because of tactics but because your positional play is not going anywhere, you may have experience but even so for some reason you are not gaining to much improvement and as a another fellow member I think it would be well to say if you would stop rejecting the way of positional play you will see that if you do well in it, study and make amends to your game then you will be much stronger and probably could break the 2000's in no time. But even so like I've said before you can just be average in positional play in the Amatuer level and as long as you are "good" in tactics and better than most of your opponents, I think reaching 2000's tactical is very achievable, but only to get out of the 1900's and other places, then you will be heading towards the near experts if that were to be the case. I consider experts higher level amatuers but still not normal ones.
But back to the topic at hand:
Again positional play is an enhancer of tactics but it is never the other way around and never will the other way around. This is not the battle of whether which one is better, but where they need to be applied whether in amatuer play or master play. Of course positional play and tactics are both needed and one truly cannot go without the other but again for this discussion it does seem that people in the Amatuer level need to master tactics and only then when they have that good tactical understanding then will they bring up there positional understanding to make significant breakthroughs in their study and play. 

I don't think you have to have exceptional positional understanding in Amatuer play, but in master play you have to have a good grip on it and in GM play you have to be near perfect in it. This is just how it is in chess and that is why this forum was brought up. Of course we may have disagreements but again that is what this discussions is about. 

Hopefully you understand my part of the discussion @Dsmith42.

@TheoFranse

I think the best way to practice is to continue to play the game, and if you are interested in reading I suggest reading a good manner of positional books to help you in your play.  Also if you are interested in reading chess books, don't go by what people say but go by what you like and understand the most. 

But rest assured reading books is not mandatory, it is not required. I do suggest analyzing your games and being aware of positional blunders and mistakes and to analyze where you went wrong in the game. If you can spot how to make the best moves and avoid blunders and mistakes I can tell you the game will be a good game and depending on how you go about it can give you a nice draw or win. 

But likewise tactics too is important and especially at your level as people make tactical mistakes that allow counterplay, and make positional blunders that allow tactics, so truly in order to master tactics you will have to be effecient at positional play, however the objective in your level is not to be yet a positional expert but just good enough in the knowledge of positions and moves to be great a tactics. 

However when it comes time that you break to higher levels such as 1800+ positional play will be a huge factor and generally people that are 2000(but to be really technical like 2200-2300)+ need a good percentage of positional play in their games to feed off of their play, whether they are purely positional or tactical in the game.

I believe that the more study, dedication and activity you have in the game, the better you will get my fellow member. Just keep playing, studying the middlegame and endgame and save the opening when you get around 1400 then you can start to build small repitoires. But just focus on how to make the best moves and not how to make the worst moves, concentrate and take the game seriously and you will go far.

You got this! @TheoFranse and keep playing the game won't dissapoint if you make the effort to go far!

Although im not a highly rated player but i believe positional understanding is much more important. Until youre in good position you cant look for tactics. If you have a positional advantage it becomes bit easier to spot tactics or simplify the game.

Hello!

There is no such a thing: "getting into tactics too soon" (okay maybe when you havent learn how the pieces move yet). Tactics are present at EVERY level, and they are very important to learn them! You keep practicing them, but find at least equal time to learn endgame aswell. The problem is, (not for me, thats why I have some winning chance) modern chess players are neglecting endgame learning, and they are focused on tactics only. Thats because it's giving them, fast "boost" in their chess "strength", but only for short term, As soon, as they stop, doing puzzles, their playing strenght starts fading  quickly without deep endgame understanding.

But if you learn both, you will rise quickly (because of the tactics) and you will stay strong (because of the endgame, positional knowledge).

As for the books, there are some very good ones. Unfortunately, I only study endgame books from Hungarian masters (since Im from Hungary) which are very old, and not sure, they were publish internationally. But Im sure you can find very good books from your country, if you know some people ask them, they probaly can help.

Long story short: keep practicing puzzles, and start learning endgames aswell! You will beat average chess-pub players soon!

I agree with both of you @AronSzacks and NikkiLike Chikki and about this I do feel like if people focus on solid chess and don't hang pieces or weaken their positions, they will be in good places to win. Of course wins are not confirmed and there are only winning chances in some positions, however it will put the ball in their corner and will definitley give players the advantage if they have a stronger position and stronger positional understanding than another player.

Plus, like Aron said there is no need for an overwhelming tactical presence really, I think it is a good to have an good tactical presence at lower levels however again positional knowledge will need to be implemented in someone's game to reach the next level. And for different players the next level could be anything, so I think it is good to understand where everyone is coming from and what they see as all of these claims are valid. In this forum I don't think there is a right or wrong answer but there is definitley preferences and some objectifying claims, however much of it deals with belief and that is what makes the more for this topic to be interesting!

But truly in my opinion there are some things that need to be re-stated to chess players as many people just think that tactics only wins, however this is very far from the truth, and I just wonder how many more stronger players there would be if they would practice their positional understanding in their games, especially in the endgame. 

I guess people have different styles, but even so all stlyes need positional understanding, and likewise all styles need tactics in exception for defensive and grinder in my opinion.

Regardless this still further's the claim and gives very good points as to what players need to do within their various levels...