Chess is all about tactics.

JackRoach

False. You may have heard the overused and probably not true phrase, "Chess is 99% tactics," but now I know what chess truly is. Chess is 99% blunders.

Marie-AnneLiz

How To Play Positional Chess‎

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-play-positional-chess

I find some players get confused by the difference between tactical and positional chess, especially because both skills are needed to play a strong game. 

Marie-AnneLiz

 

Good positional understanding is one of the main criteria separating masters from club players. The problem is that it can be one of the toughest areas of the game to improve. Why is that? Because it is often left out of lessons for beginners, and there is next to nothing for beginners out there that covers positional chess!

The Backward Pawn – Positional Chess for Beginners

https://www.ichess.net/blog/positional-chess-beginners-castellanos/

Omega_Doom
JackRoach wrote:

False. You may have heard the overused and probably not true phrase, "Chess is 99% tactics," but now I know what chess truly is. Chess is 99% blunders.

So blunders are more important. Shoot, i wasted my life.

Marie-AnneLiz

5 Ways to Improve Your Positional Play:

https://thechessworld.com/articles/training-techniques/5-ways-improve-positional-play/

Marie-AnneLiz

Marie-AnneLiz

gary801
Marie-AnneLiz wrote:
 

Good positional understanding is one of the main criteria separating masters from club players. The problem is that it can be one of the toughest areas of the game to improve. Why is that? Because it is often left out of lessons for beginners, and there is next to nothing for beginners out there that covers positional chess!

The Backward Pawn – Positional Chess for Beginners

https://www.ichess.net/blog/positional-chess-beginners-castellanos/

yes unless you have a coach, which can be expensive for the casual player, learning positional play is very difficult.  one book i had years ago which was pretty good at this was weapons of chess by pandolfini 

Zjlm1015
Is positional chess premeditated? Or are there different scenarios each time, in which you have to use a new line of thinking to get the advantage in position? That’s the crux of this conversation. There’s principles, but EFFECTIVE “strategies” are entirely based on the oppositions responses. SOO we arrive at tactics versus strategies.
Marie-AnneLiz

Positional chess is all about accumulating many small and very small advantages and using them when the time is right.

 Positional play is the art of improving one's own position, while degrading the position of the opponent.

Colin20G
Marie-AnneLiz a écrit :
Zjlm1015 a écrit :
Like those points as well, and I notice that I’m playing devils advocate, or as you put it, stubborn.

Cause those sound like the “good principles” that I aforementioned. And there are circumstances where these are not good moves.

Bottom line, I think you’re a prescriptivist and I’m a descriptivist.

Here a GM ( Sébastien Mazé ) show in many games how to play without any calculations! Only with Positional play! And of course he win them all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrqYqwkUZM&t=103s

 

 

He doesn't win because of "positional play without calculating" but because the players are 800+ elo below him.

Wits-end
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
That would be a bad definition of tactics and trivializes its definition. In the military strategy is big picture and tactics is little picture. It’s the same for chess.

You can put a piece on a good square with no obvious plan for how to use it. It’s just on a good square. That is not the definition of a tactic except in the broadest sense and completely undermines the distinction between strategy and tactics. If something means everything, it means nothing.

I like your analogy, makes simple sense of the topic.

Marie-AnneLiz
Colin20G a écrit :
Marie-AnneLiz a écrit :
Zjlm1015 a écrit :
Like those points as well, and I notice that I’m playing devils advocate, or as you put it, stubborn.

Cause those sound like the “good principles” that I aforementioned. And there are circumstances where these are not good moves.

Bottom line, I think you’re a prescriptivist and I’m a descriptivist.

Here a GM ( Sébastien Mazé ) show in many games how to play without any calculations! Only with Positional play! And of course he win them all!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrqYqwkUZM&t=103s

 

 

He doesn't win because of "positional play without calculating" but because the players are 800+ elo below him.

100% of all his move are positional and he win against 5 players,one is 1700 and one is 1844 and one 1875 and one 1723 and one 2300 that is the point  and a 1800 here is in the top 5% of all the players here so it's relevant! to learn how to play this way!

 

blueemu
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
That would be a bad definition of tactics and trivializes its definition. In the military strategy is big picture and tactics is little picture. It’s the same for chess.

Actually, the military recognizes an intermediate level, between strategy and tactics, called "the operational level".

I was at one time a Mentor at the Canadian Army's Combined Arms Tactics School.