chess 99 % tactics agree or disagree

People say they are the same thing because they see what engines do and assume that because engines figure out positional play through amazingly deep tactics, that humans can do the same. 

Uhhh, no. Not even close. That's like saying you can lift a Mack truck because you can mimic the movements of a hydraulic lift, step by step.

Again, there are numerous positions where a clear plan of play is achieved mainly through positional understanding (like making a superior minor piece) for which tactical knowledge doesn't contribute much. 

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If I lift five pounds, that is lifting a weight. So is lifting a Mack truck, which I cannot do. 

Good positional play is good because it contains good long term tactical (i.e. strategic or positional) possibilities. This is merely a matter of semantics and not even worth arguing about. Putting pieces in any position on the board is "good" or "bad" based on the effect that it has - long and short term - on the game. This is true whether you have a 4 move tactic in mind, or whether you are trying to control the center because that results in better tactical possibilities. 

I would welcome this - not that the definitions really matter, because good tactical or positional play is good regardless of what you call it

You cannot expect winning tactics when you screw your game positionally- they will fail, because your position is lame.

Nor there is any point positionally outplaying your opponent if you cannot calculate a thing and finish him off.

You need both to win a chess game.

Thanks that is helpful. But can you explain the difference between strategy and tactics, or between positional and tactical play? I understand that positional play obviously has to do with positioning of your pieces on the board, and tactics has a shorter term focus - i.e. usually the next few moves. But they seem to me to be longer/shorter versions of the same thing.

you used the pin tactic to take on b3

There is an old half-joke which goes "tactics is what you should apply when there is plenty to do- while strategy is what you should apply when there is nothing to do".

In reality, yes, they are two faces of the same coin. You can use A, or B- but you always are in search of the best move.

Not really.

In true tactics, you will come out with a material plus or checkmate.

In true positional based moves, you will gain an advantage that is not concrete in terms of material or mate. THings like a slightly better pawn structure, superior minor piece, better centralization or development, or space advantage are what you are playing for.

You can do tactics until you're blue in the face and NEVER understand how positional concepts, as the thought process and positions to memorize are different than that of tactics.

At the same time, without tactical knowledge, you will never fully grasp positional play as you must see the tactical kills and pitfalls before going for the smaller advantage.

But for sure, there are many, many situations and even entire games (Silman shows quite a few of these) where the best move is decided nearly entirely on positional means where even IM+ strength tactics will not show you the way to victory.

A good positional move is NOT just a longer tactic. A tactic that comes out with a material plus in 10 instead of 4 moves is just a longer tactic, not a positional move. 

Chess strategy is "your plan".  Chess tactics are unescapable manuevers that 'pop up' in a chess game, if you can spot em.

I think... right?

Usually a correct positional plan is rewarded at the end with a major or minor tactic, which works because of your positional superiority. It is happening all the time. An example from one of my older games:

Notice how Black's positional superiority is crowned at the end with an easy tactic, winning material.

The plan of suddenly switching the rook(s) from one side of the board to the opposite one when Black is still busy on the other side, is hardly original. A few days before the game I was replaying some old classics, and a game that particularly impressed me was Schlechter-John, Barmen 1905. To some extent, I immitated Schlechter's positional approach- as a matter of fact I was playing so mechanically this "easy" position that I did not even notice the simple move 21...Bc2, which picks up an exchange for nothing.

Still, and despite white's subpar play, I think the game is rather pretty- no?

I love it! opening played precisely, great positional build up followed by the applicable tactic.

and here I thought you had a dislike for the accelerated dragon ;p

So, strategy is not 'set in stone'(so to speak) like tactic, right?  

No, strategy is gaining advantages that are measured in less than one pawn if counting by pure material, but has non-material factors that are often worth far more than that. 

Tactics is almost invariably a sequence that gains material or a checkmating attack. 

Strategic moves are crucial to improving your position so that you eventually can unleash a winning tactic. 

There's a fair amount of overlap, but also a fair amount of difference. A positional player may look at a position and be thinking how to close the position and play for a superior N vs B situation, whereas a tactical player may look at the same position at look for a central liquidation which would lead to complex open tactics for both sides.  

When you get beat by nice tactics, the reaction is usually "nice combo - didn't see that!"

When you get beat by accurate positional play, often times you think "wow I lost bad, but I'm not sure why....got squeezed to death somehow..."

Tactics, or short-term planning, were well used in the Romantic era. Much more attacking was used and no preparation for upcoming debacles. This is generally how many 1400 and below players play. Strategy, or long-term planning, was developed after the Immortal Game played by Andersson and Kieseritzky. Masters use a well-balanced mix of Tactics and Strategy.