Chess is 99% tactics?

There is a famous quote that chess is 99% tactics and I was interested to hear your opinions on this.

Obviously a huge part of being a good chess player is determined by your tactical skills but just how much do you think it plays a part?

I can speak from my own experience that my chess rating increases very quickly the more and the better I am at the tactics trainer here on chess.com.

I agree!

https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-is-99-tactics

I personally don't think so. Tactics are very very important. But how do you choose what to pursue and what not to pursue? Should you swap that knight for a bishop or not? Do you go for the cheapo or put your rook on an open file. In most games, many of your moves are improving your position, not directly making a tactical threat, responding to one etc.

 From the referenced article, "Even though he was an excellent tactician he understood positional play very well. Also he was a good analyst and brilliant composer." (Emphasis added).

I think part of the reasons some high level people maintain this is simply that the positional aspects of play have become automatic for them. It is like breathing. They don't have to think about it much. Nonetheless, they are doing it constantly.

For example Simon Williams, GingerGM, is a highly aggressive, very tactical player. But if you watch his videos, he is often thinking about best placement of pieces, when to swap and when not, the kind of endings he will be getting, etc. In other words he actually is very positional as well.

And how do you get a "superior" position?  By knowing strategy.

But tactics surely must be the aspect of the game that is the most unlearnable and the aspect that requires the most talent? I mean surely everyone can master some basic tactical ideas but when it comes to a certain level usually one has to be very talented in order to do the calculation required in order to complete the tactic?

I mean positional play is much more learnable and doesn't require calculation in the same way.

• The tactician knows what to do when there is something to do; whereas the strategian knows what to do when there is nothing to do. - Gerald Abrahams

Well said and I agree!

Positional play isn't always about calculation. For me, it is far harder to play positionally. When you are in a closed position, what do you do? That is the part where you think positionally. In a tactical situation, there is always a certain way to make a big difference to material, position etc. However, positional play is all about subtly improving your position while restricting your opponent. It is a form of art to be able to know how to best coordinate and improve your position, and few people have that skill.

Do Tactics check when you have extra time.

A GM playing almost without tactics on 1-2 mins/ game can win most amateurs on 1-2 hours/ game.

Why? Understanding of chess/ position/ intution  are  x10 times more important than tactics.

Well yeah I think that is partly true in the quick games, however if you watch a player like Nakamura playing blitz or even bullet here on chess.com he always seems to win due to being tactically superior. 

It leaves out too much, so it doesn't really mean anything. For examples does it mean 99% of games are won with tactics? 99% of analysis is tactics? 99% of critical positions are tactics?

The only thing it manages to communicate is "tactics are really important"

In spite of many people claiming otherwise, not much. Of course well rounded chess players will use tactics to beat peers, but without being well rounded it doesn't count for much. As a different poster pointed out, the famous Fischer quote about tactics come from a better position in the first place.

That's how it works in the beginning. And especially for people who work on their tactics last (like Michael De La Mesa) solving puzzles can have a dramatic effect on your rating.

But if it's all you do, you'll eventually hit roadblocks, and have to go back and learn all the stuff you'd been ignoring.

Meh, not really.

I've seen him hang rooks and queens, but his GM opponents miss the opportunity. I've seen Erik Hansen playing live online, curse at himself for missing simple tactics vs HIkaru.

The point is if you put someone under enough pressure strategically, then they'll blunder 1, 2, or 3 move tactics even if they're GMs. That's why it's misleading to tell people things like "only study tactics until 2000" It's a load of crap.

In the 2013 world chess championship match, there was a double blunder. IIRC Carlsen blundered a pawn to a simple 2-3 move tactic, and Anand missed it. Because they were busy worrying about other elements (and I assume a championship match is psychologically difficult)...

but anyway, the point is clear, it's not really all about tactics.

We could say tactics are necessary, but not sufficient.

Well, sure they blunder but usually I find when watching top level games that the player who is superior tactically is the one who wins. Obviously tactics is not everything, but you often see game that could have easily been won if a super simple tactic was not missed.

^imbacon is wrong

Their tactics are super impressive... but the 20 move that come before that impress me too.

They obviously know tons of ideas and patterns that let them put on a lot of pressure in almost any opening, any position type, etc.

Care to expand on that?