Chess tactics is not brilliant it's a mistake ???

What's your point? Tactics still have to be considered against Carlsen so you know which candidate moves are safe.

I used to complain about what I felt was, people getting too caught up in tactical study.

The whole truth is that every player makes mistakes, at every level. If you have no tactical foresight or better yet, never take the initiative to take advantage of tactical chances when they are there, you will fail to take advantage of the only chances to beat many of the best players. Otherwise, you will only play slow, boring, drawish chess, that no one will enjoy...

 I study  huge  tactics  but never can use it to  a GM 

I played 3 times to  a GM simultaneous games.

All tactics is, at bottom, the exploiting of a mistake by the opponent.

The question is whether you have the ability to prove that Carlsen's last move was a mistake. Very few of us have, but obviously at least some people in the world can manage it some of the time.

If you are unable to use tactics against a GM, it is only because you don't play at a level that causes them to get confused or reach the limits of their abilities...If you don't believe me, study Tal, Fischer, Petrosian or Kasparov games...4 of the best tacticians of all time...

Tactics exploit big blunders as well as positions that have made many small imperfections over the course of a whole game.  No one plays perfectly, there are always imperfect moves, and so there are always winning tactics when one player plays more errors than their opponent.  Between players of nearly equal strength this usually happens at the end of a long strategic struggle.

Tactics rule chess. If you stink at tactics then you lose.

well as far as i know a computer excells in tactics and it beats carlsen as far as i know every time.

strategy is what sets up good position for u to use tactics later in game and force things if necessary. U have to be good at tactics to take advantage of piece advantages but u need to have good strategy to take up good positions. Strategy is like armour and tactics like sword . Sound strategy at the start of game sets up good foundation for future moves.

Watch your mouth.

well i would say strategy is the plan of the general and the tactics is everything else the soldiers have to do on their way to victory or defeat

maybe i understand the term tactics wrong, but i thought tactics are more just combinations, just like technique you have to use fluidly throughout the game to achieve your goals and not just some forced or semi forced chain of moves.

I serioulsy doubt Haydenfan is the worlds leading authority on How to beat Magnus Carlsen.

That being said, I will say I much rather win a game from a 30 move strategic plan than from a 4-move combination.

If you feel that way as well, fine. Play positionally.

But NEVER discount the importance of tactics in your game! Tactics are what decide more games than anything else.

Chess is most probably a draw with perfect play, so yes, any tactical shot that you get is due to a mistake on your opponent's part. It's just as true though that if you get any kind of significant strategic advantage in a game, it is also because your opponent made a mistake.

The only way to "improve" the position for either player is to seize upon a mistake of the opponent -- tactical, strategical, or otherwise. I say "improve" because you don't really improve your position, you merely preserve your advantage after your opponent has impaired his position. 

so when you say a 30 move strategic plan, are you implying you want to win because of your opening choice

part of websters definition of tactical : of or relating to tactics: as (1): of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2): made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view

b: adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose.