Chess is 100 percent tactics

Well, at least you know that. It's purticulurly important for the chess.com forums. I took a test on line that said my IQ is 190, which makes me very qualified to post here. I doubt you would break 150 given your logical fallacies.

Plebians like you will never learn. It's not what you do, it's who you are. Do you think Mag Nus Carl Son got where he is through hard work alone? No. Sadly, people like you, no matter how hard you work, will probably never be able to make decent chess.com forum posts. I hate to break it to you, but it's pretty empty hope.

According to my calculations, chess is about 83.5958275069234654346 % tactics.

Wel TK, I guess THAT dashes your dreams of beating Mag Nus Carl Son.

Well miner7b5 has, I think, conclusively proved that tkbunny will not be able to beat Magnus Carlson.  Sorry bunny.  I wonder, though, if you could have figured that out without an internet-tested 190 IQ, good thing we have folks like miner to keep us in our place.

Bah, kleelof beat me to it.

FACT: Anyone who cites their own IQ in an argument is a moron. So, moving on?

HA I didn't catch that the first reading:

" I took a test on line that said my IQ is 190, which makes me very qualified to post here"

If the internet said it, it must be true.

I've found the only real qualification to post here is the willingness to put-up with dweebs, morons and other forms of undesirables.

Well, if you paying attention, I didn't say tkbunny would never beat the world champion because I thought that much obvious. That was an just an example of some one with talent. I was saying tk bunny will never be able to make good chess.com forum posts. Apparently neether will you. I shouldn't expect people like to to undertsand though. That would just be unfair.

This always happens when I tackle trolls, they take back what they say or swing it to mean something different. Now you're saying that the qualification here changed? I thought you said it was an IQ thing? Good one about the internet BTW, never heard it before.

That's great! No we're talking about more realistic pursuits- covers are great for someone with limitted creative potential.

Anyway, back to my original question (some low IQed people got me off topic) every position must be a win for one side or a draw, right? There's no nebulus other possibility as far I no. So, as one poster pointed it, it's sometimes hard work to figure it out to the end. So positional chess is laziness? I guess I can understand "positional chess" (which is just "lazy chess" I guess) for a patzer like me who chooses to devote his high IQ to other things, but what about for professional players? I mean, it's what they do, so they should be willing to work hard, right? When grandmasters talking about positional chess, are they just saying "I would figure this out to the end, but I'm to lazy, so I played positionally instead of taking the time to figure out the tactics"?

100 percent of tactics are positionally based. 

I think this is an oversimplification. Maybe a certain position is a win or a draw with PERFECT play from both sides; i.e. a computer has evaluated it and assigned it a result, but who's to say that White and Black will both follow that line? Let's say I put in a herculean effort and calculate that I will be up two pawns after the next 37 moves with best play. Then my opponent deviates from that line on the third move- aren't I back to square one (no pun intended)? Don't I then have to reassess the position from the beginning? As you know there are time constraints at all levels and energy constraints too.

Also, let's just say that chess is a draw with perfect play. Let's say for the sake of argument that the perfect first moves are 1. e4 e5, after which the position is drawn. But nobody's forcing me to take a draw just because you know the position is drawn. Let's pretend you are able with considerable effort to assess any position tactically and can tell when a position is drawn or winning. In real life people will constantly deviate from your calculated lines and nobody will accept your draw offers in positions you know are drawn. I would personally certainly make you play everything out and make life as tough as possible...

I don't agree that chess is 100% tactics and I don't agree that chess is 100% positional. I think Jeremy Silman and Daniel Naroditsky (chess.com authors) have it right- you can't get good positions without tactical awareness and you won't get to use your tactics if you're always in rotten positions. That's why Carlsen, a "positional" player, is also a tactical god who sets his opponents dozens of tactical problems every game, while a guy like Kasparov, an "attacking" player, was also incredible at positional chess. To be really good at chess one must be really good tactically and strategically (that's why I'm not really good at chess!)

Stopping making fun of Magnus, son of Carl.

Did Geller happen to mention which move in the game?

I would assume the first move- if you just calculate all of the variations before you play your first move then no more calculation is needed.

I am trying to memorize chess. So far I have every possible white move and every possible black response, this took me a week. I figure in 40 weeks I will have the first 40 moves down pat.

Oh high-IQed one, have you heard of the Shannon Number? It's basically a number that says, "No, you have no clue what you're talking about."

lol are you kidding?