Chess is 1% ....

Colin20G (post #24), you make an intriguing point about "problems tend to cumulate", but I am most interested in your last paragraph. Are all of your examples actually attributed to "tactics", or do they reveal evidence for a case against 99% of chess being tactics? No doubt that pattern recognition is helpful; there is no doubt that pattern recognition helps a chess player see tactical ideas sooner and more efficiently; but I don't view pattern recognition and tactics as the same thing (related maybe, but different). Is "Spotting the good moves of your opponent" really tactical, or in that infamous "1%" category? Likewise, I would not call "being able to notice undefended/enprise piece (s)" a tactical skill. Of course, all of these elements are part of what makes chess interesting - and of course, they are skills a chess player refines with practice: however, the question remains - "are these really tactics, or has the term been blindly over used to include what it does not include?"

I attempt to answer in the style of diplomacy and respect, and this is nothing against you personally; I have seen terms stretched and exaggerated a lot beyond their bounds of definition, and often the stretching and exaggerating was done far before the ones who recite it. I am merely suggesting that several of the examples of tactics given are not really tactics at all! 

These make up that "1%" that I refer to as far greater than 1% should with-hold. Therefore, I see this as further evidence that chess is far less than 99% tactical. The exact percentage may be open for debate, but I believe it is significantly less than 99%.

Which is of course not really true either, except in an extremely broad definition of the word. For example, I can win or defend certain endgames without doing a lick of calculation, at least in the normal sense of the word. I.e. I don't have to look ahead at all.

Oh, was is Joel Benjamin? I probably  mixed him up.

Anyway, yeah, the conscious part of chess is probably some high percent calculation.

But if it were just straight up 99% calculation then e.g. simuls would be impossible.

I don't think he said there was no calculation in Simuls. I think the point is that Simuls require visualization and recall of the position that aren't in the normal chess sense of the word calculation.

The implication is GMs wouldn't be able to beat 50 people if they had to out calculate 50 people.

If you've ever been to a simul you'll know what I mean. They can move instantly at most boards.

If you've ever given a simul (I've done some small ones) you'll know this is a lot harder than e.g. playing speed chess because it's like every single position is new (so there's not a back log of calculation and evaluation helping to speed you up like when you play a single game).

I didn't claim there was no calculation, that would be silly.

If the GM is playing a bunch of kids, then sure, maybe only a very small amount of calculation is needed.

Last simul I went to I made the position extremely sharp (saced a queen for 3 pieces as part of my home prep). The GM still beat me though.

Kasparov famously played simuls against GMs.

You don't beat a national team by calculating more than them. You do it by knowing chess better.

Sure the conscious thought may be mostly calculation, but the real skill is in the long term memory, from decades of studying chess.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1016404

ISRAEL MATCH 19 AND 21 MAY 1998 TEL AVIV RESULT 7-1

6 wins, 2 draws.

Kasparov described this as one of the peak performances of his career, blowing away opposition averaging over 2600.

The "tactics is 99% of chess" statement is and was pedagogical hyperbole.   But I am glad for this post because a lot of interesting comments came out. 

I don't think this is true. You have openings, endgames, strategy, development, etc. Tactics are important (forks, pins, skewers, etc) but they are not that important. I would say around 25% of chess is purely tactical.

A little, infamous quote:

Tactics flow from a positionally superior game.

Duke Archibald Campbell

(I hope I have quoted properly).

Wasn't it  a quote from Fischer? 

It doesn't contradict the fact that tactics flow all the time to me due to good positions my opponent has.

Chess is 1% of your life??? That's WAY too much!!!!!

Have a look at this game and tell me how many times I could have been killed on the spot if my opponent did what he should have done.

Tactics flow from a superior position only when you see them.
(I must be on full tilt today... I can play a little better than that)

At the top level it's about 30% memory with all the different lines they've learnt by heart.

That's correct.  In "My 60 Memorable Games,"  Fischer wrote:

If you were right, an outstanding strategic player would be able to beat an engine. That is false, all we know some tactics will decide the game in engine' s favour

The clock plays a role in competitive chess.

... so perhaps chess is 99% tactics and 1% tick-tocks?