chess 99 % tactics agree or disagree

What is the score now between agree and disagree?

I like 100% common sense.

Chess is 100% wood.

Norlandia, what about the plastic?

Srategy is just longer-term tactics; the 2 are not separate. It's all one.

When I am in a tactical mood, I see chess as all strategy if I lose.  When I am in a strategic mood, I see chess all tactics if I lose.

I completely agree, except that leaving just 1% for inspiration is perhaps a slight exaggeration. I would say it's more like 3% inspiration and 97% tactics, but who am I to argue with Thomas Edison?

You are not in a position to argue with Edison.  He is dead.

Positional play is almost 100% tactics because it doesn't work if you blunder.

Play the board...

I agree that it does not make much sense separating tactics from strategy. If your strategy is worse than your opponents, you probably won't get any tactical possibilities. On the other hand, it is often necessary to have tactical skills to convert a strategical advantage into a win. So it is best to have both skills available.

I still strongly disagree that you can just ignore the separate components of strategy vs tactics. There are plenty of positions that are only positional or only tactical, and you will not be able to solve them if you are lacking in either skill.

It is true that there is a huge overlap, and for sure, you can't understand the higher level positional without tactics (and somewhat vice versa), but it's a complete error to assume that you will learn good positional play solely by solving tactics.

In fact, I've found that in a lot of situations, your positional play gets WORSE after doing tons of tactical problems, because a lot of tactical problems have you making totally crazy looking moves that violate almost every positional principle of solid play, but is playable solely due to the single saving tactical line. When you get using to solving that kind of stuff nonstop without reinforcing your strategic play, it's easy to overlook the subtle but critical positional factors once you're back at a game because your tactical brain doesn't find anything alarming, whereas a positional player would be working hard already to solidify their position.

My rating doesn't go up at all until I get both of them to improve. Usually, however, positional study seems to yield me the most benefit, as it seems to incorporate tactics better, while not completely ignoring the strategy. (Contrast to a lot of tactical problems you can completely ignore any long-term strategic principles, even super fundamental stuff like king safety and center control, due to the winning tactical shot.)

Yup.  For myself, tactics training helps me think longer(clearer), and see further. But, without positional study I really don't see how I would actually get much better at the full game of chess.

A good position is built on the tactical possibilities it contains. the 2 are NOT SEPARATE THINGS. Positional play is merely longer-term tactical play. It's like asking "what's more important to a brick house, bricks or the house?"  THEY ARE THE SAME THING

I think we've been saying this since early in the thread. People who aren't going to get it just aren't going to get it.

This question concerning tactics gets asked every 6 or 7 months or so. The ideal in chess is simple: strategy is used to set up tactical possibilities and tactics are used to achieve strategic aims. This is the ideal, not the rule. The basic definition of a tactic is any move that captures a piece or threatens to capture a piece. A pawn exchange in the opening, first dozen or so moves, that has a strategic aim fits the definition of a tactic, but the idea behind it might be completely strategic. Just food for thought.

in a chess game, how many tactics actually get played?  I doubt most games see more than 2 or 3.  yet most games go about 30 moves, so in fact, it is the positional moves that account for about 90% of chess.  

Positional chess doesn't exist, because all positions are based on tactical calculations.

Yeah, I guess you're right. 

Um.. not exactly.  Actually, not at all.  Hopefully a master or someone highly rated can post some common chess logic on here AGAIN(anyone?).