Are GM's Better Tactically Or Positionally

     We know that GM's have few weaknesses and are great at both the
positional aspects and the tactical aspects of chess, but which are they
superior at compared to the average player?
     Is it their tactical ability that sets them apart from the masses or is it
their positional play that is far above the average player?
     Which sets the GM apart most of all?

Young GMs tend to be very good at tactics, while older GMs tend to be good at positional play.  It depends a lot on the player's style as well.

Both, but proabably more positional.

Even a mediocre player can sometimes stumble upon a complicated tactic, it's much harder to accidentally get a strategic concept right.

Knowledge, positional understanding, tactical vision, calculation abilities, intuition, experience, speed of thinking, visualization, otb skills, consistency, etc.

"...one other thing is the GM's superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you're a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. "

-- Nick de FIRMIAN, in How to get Better at Chess Chess Masters On Their Art by GM Larry Evans, IM Jeremy B Silman and Betty Roberts

If you are good at tactics, I think that it is easier to beat a GM by complicating the game as much as possible in the hopes that they go wrong.  I think in general it is much easier for a good player to go wrong in a complex position rife with combinational shots, as we saw in the Kasparov-Radjabov upset a few years back.  I don't think this kind of thing happens because GMs are bad at tactics, but more that complex positions inject an element of luck into the game.  It is very hard to beat a GM in a slow positional game because they can more easily play with the draw in hand.

As some people have already answered, they are better at everything.

But in answer to the headline, I think it depends on the individual GM as to what he or she is better at. There are some GMs who prefer a nice, quiet 1. d4 or 1. c4 where they slowly strangle you and grind you to a pulp. And then there are the GMs who like to go 1. e4 ala Bobby Fischer and destroy people with their relentless tactical ability.

Tal is probably a great example of a tactical genius.

Karpov is probably a great example of a positional genius.

And maybe there are guys like Capablanca and Kasparov who are just infinitely better at everything infinitely equally.

To be a GM as stated by many posts above you gotta be fantastic at every part of the game. Generally a GM has a certain inate strength that shows up in their style.

On the occasions where I have managed to beat players rated higher than myself, it has usually been in positions where both sides had pieces en prise and our kings were out in the open.  The stronger tactician of course will usually win, but there is also more of a chance that even a strong player will make a mistake than in a quiet position.  What I am trying to say is that it is hard to win a game if both players are playing with the draw in hand, and easier for an upset to occur if you have managed to create a position so complex that it is hard to judge what the best course is.  As another example, a lot of Fischer's losses came in positions of an irrational nature.

GMs will be able to pick out positional errors that you make fairly easily, but if the position itself is highly tactical, it takes some time to figure out what is a blunder and what is a brilliant sacrifice.

I don't believe there is any luck in the game of chess.

Why does Karpov keep blundering pieces or get checkmated in blitz or blindfold games?

Are more GM games won ultimately because of tactics or are they won
because of positional play?

postional play...leads to an advantageous position where tactics can be found.

Yeah, agree.

All top-class players are tactical masters, and the difference tactically between a player of rating 2400 and 2800 would be minimal. The difference here would be the positional and strategical ability. However, tactical abilities would reign at lower ratings (e.g. up to about 1700).

Yes, GM's are better tactically and positionally than the rest of us. Any other questions?

Have you seen Kasparov's games? How he manages to see so rediculously much that people think his moves are typos? I have a book of some of his best games, and there were some GM's he could just absolutely crush tactically, if the position was complex enough.