Does Computer Superiority Prove That Chess Is Mostly Tactics?

If there's one thing I've noticed whenever humans play against computers it's that they almost always try to use anti-computer strategies to beat them. Why? Because they'd lose otherwise. So they look for ways to exploit the engine's programming. When they play they almost always look for quiet positions and try to trick the engine out of it's book. Why? Because the engines calculate better.

Today in the Man Vs. Machine game we had a game in which the IM had a (+2) advantage against the engine opponent. And yet he never even tried to convert it until his anti-computer strategy of waiting for the engine to be forced to play a sub-optimal move worked. But but what does this say about the oh so superior positional skills of humans if they think it's too risky to go into complications with an engine with a (+2) advantage? I mean does it need to be (+4) or (+24) before it's safe to play normal chess?

If you can't convert with a (+2) advantage over any opponent then how could you ever hope to win ever? It seems to me that the superior tactical ability of the engine negates any and all positional superiority that the human may have making it all virtually meaningless. So how is chess not mostly tactics then? Who cares if you have a better position if you just auto-lose when you try to actually do something meaningful with it? Now it's true that games between humans are not so bleak. But lets face it - the odds of facing a tactically superior opponent are always out there. What then? Is the game over before it even began?

"Sorry Mr. Nimzowitch, but you're going to lose because I'll just outcalculate you and win anyway. Nice knight on d5 you have there though! And no, I won't take a draw. You'll screw up sooner or later."

Chess, even before computer chess, has always been mostly tactics.  Being good at strategies and positioning yourself to put a Knight on a strong outpost or exploit a backward pawn helps you win games, but you still need tactics to take advantage of good positions.

And then now comes Alpha0, LC0 and other NN's that prefer positional play more than tactics and you can say that 'anti-engine' strategies are the way to go all along. The irony is that these NN's are also engines.