Do you believe Chess is 90% tactics?

At lower ratings tactics (or maybe we should call them good calculation habits) are a limiting factor... 99% is a lot though. Probably hyperbole to make the point that tactics are really important.

For example when I was 1300 OTB I obviously knew tactics like forks and pins... but sometimes I'd screw up because the moves I chose to calculate didn't always make sense. I just sort of calculated random things until I happened to like a move.

you seemed to have confused chess with clash royale 

yes

Chess vibes YouTube channel lists for rapid games

///1400///

Tactic mistakes @ 53%

Blunders @ 35%

Time trouble @ 6%

Opening traps/tricks @ 5%

///1600///

Blunders @ 41%

Tactic mistakes @ 26%

Lack of opening knowledge @ 16%

Time pressure @ 7%

Bad endgame technique @ 6%

////1800///

Tactics @ 36%

Blunders @ 25%

Endgame technique @ 25%

Rook endgame @ 18%

Minor piece endgame 12%

Lost on time @ 11%

Poor opening @ 9%

_________________________________________________________________________________________

He explains why it doesn't add up to 100 but I can't remember the reason, I am 1600 rapid and it looks pretty accurate.

strategy, first and foremost, and then 'combos' help... A LOT

What’s funny to me is that people think that there is a designated number to what that percentage is.

It’s however you choose to play.

it's maybe 20% max tactics. Chess is much more than just tactics.

is #16 going to be on the test?

Before e others can even put a percentage or number on it. Can you explain what designates how much of it is what. What makes a number bigger or smaller. It’s different with each move you make if you want to think about it with “how much”.

This argument is based on the somewhat arbitrary definition of tactics vs. positional play.  But positional play, evaluated to enough depth, is also tactics.  If you can use tactics to force a pawn promotion through in 3 moves, or 54 moves, it's largely the same.  We just call things "tactics" that we can readily understand, and the tactics that we cannot calculate out all the way, we call "positional play".

So, in that sense, chess is 100% tactics, if you are omniscient .

It's difficult to make sense of these numbers. For example, is a blunder a directly hanging piece or is it a tactic related blunder? When it says tactic, does that mean they missed a winning tactic and then went on to lose the game?

I'd argue that if you are wanting to get better at chess, endgame is primary (which includes tactics), followed by pure tactic study. IF you understand tactics then your strategy can be around setting those tactics up. If you understand the power of a knight on F6 and the various attacking ideas, then you can have a good attack plan focus around that and choose openings that favor those positions. It's all related, but if you are worse at tactics, you will often lose. Often it's the focus required to calculate tactics too (which is trained with tactics training).

It just isn't. Whoever said that can't do arithmetic.

Tactic usally wins but you got to set the pieces up on the correct spot for it to happen. Like for example, in puzzles there are allready a winning position. The tricky part is to get to the winning position. 

     "Tactics" is the English equivalent of the ancient Greek "taktikos", meaning to arrange thins in order. In military matters it meant to arrange troops in ranks and files. In this sense, every chess move is a tactic, probably what Teichmann meant. The Greek "strategia" meant generalship--choosing a plan and using the right tactics to implement it.

     Tactics is by far the most important factor for the vast majority of players; we all know that most games are won/lost by outright mistakes or deeper correct calculation. With players of nearly equal strength strategy will play a greater role--finding the right plan makes it easier to come up with correct tactics, especially with very good players who make very few errors.

     I think that it's more of a sliding scale than a strict %, with knowing what needs to be done aiding greatly in the determination of how to do it. Of course, the stronger players usually have a greater strategic sense as well as superior tactical ability, but in the end tactics is decisive. No plan is clever and profound enough to make up for tactical mistakes.

Yep that is right, blunders in the list are hanging pieces and not taking them and tactics are errors in calculations and missing forks/checkmates etc check out chessvibes the videos are called breaking past ratings.

In a sense, this debate is really a semantic exercise, rather than maths or philosophy. In chess lexicon strategy and tactics are different things. In the world beyond chess (wait, there's a world beyond chess!?!) they're virtual synonyms. But at the most fundamental level, all chess 'tactics' are essentially just the outcome of good calculation. Where does the quote come from?

<< "Tactics" is the English equivalent of the ancient Greek "taktikos", meaning to arrange thins in order. In military matters it meant to arrange troops in ranks and files. In this sense, every chess move is a tactic, probably what Teichmann meant.>>

"Every move" means that chess is 100% tactics. Of course he didn't mean that.

What he did mean is that chess games are usually decided tactically.