How to think positionally?

I'm struggling with tactical vs positional. Can it be generalized like this?

tactical: Playing for material

positional: Playing for squares.

Could a positional player(s) please explain to me how they think? I tend to look for material, combos. I'd like to get into some positional study, but not sure where to start, especially how to think. 

Somewhat surprising since you are such a mega Silman fan...

********************

I had a long post in the general forum about how beginners and intermediate players improve.  Let me give you some thoughts are positional play from my perspective.

I am assuming you have some sort of basic opening repertoire established.  This is important because it helps to study the themes associated with the openings you play.  It's extremely important to understand some of the typical plans associated with each main opening system you play.  I suppose this is what people mean when they study opening theory.  Now, here's where tactics and positional play are intertwined (at least with respect to the opening).  Some opening play is extremely forced and often it's rather slow and 'positional.'   Clearly memorization is needed for openings that are very tactical in nature (Dragon Sicilian) vs some slower openings (Colle) for White.  However, most of the time it's far more important (and practical) for the student to understand where the pieces are normally placed.  Straight away you are rallying around some plan since you are trying to place the pieces so they conform to the major structural element of the position - the placement of the pawns.

Naturally the study of master games associated with the opening system in question helps speed up the process.  Ideally you can find some games that you might consider samples of model play.  This is even easier in the modern era of chess since programs like ChessBase allow one to review many games very, very quickly.

The above notes likely help you from the opening to early middle game stages of the game.

It's possible to condense some of Silman's ideas to a more compact fashion as follows:

Structural (static features): Material, pawn structure

Dynamic: Time and space (space here not only pertains to squares pawns control, but squares pieces control as well)

So if you only want to discuss positional play, I am guessing you are primarily interested in the static features.  This would be, in my opinion, the relative value of the minor pieces (and perhaps major pieces too), control of open files, creation (or avoiding) weak pawns (and weak squares).

In simple terms you are trying to improve the mobility of your pieces, keep your pawn structure healthy, and also try and probe your opponent's side of the board and create weaknesses to attack.  If you find yourself on the defensive and in a cramped position, then trade off pieces - go after his pieces that are better than yours and seek favorable exchanges.

But chess is a game of tradeoffs.  Often one must the weigh the pros and cons of each exchange (or retreat).  The mastery of chess is knowing when to conform to general ideas and when it is OK to break the 'rules.'

LOL. Yeah I study Silman religiously, so I can see why the "How to think" part may have thrown you off. What I'm precisly trying to decifer is what is positional play, vs what is tactical play. I have a firm grasp on tactical. But when people say He's a positional player or he's a tactical player. What does that exactly mean? They seem to be intertwined. For example they say Petrosian was a positional player and Tal tactical. Does that mean to say that Petrosian doesnt attack? I doubt it, I'll bet he does attack with excellent combinations. I get the feeling that it's an offensive vs defensive comparison, but I'm not really sure. 

I think you are getting at various playing styles.  Clearly players like Tal, Fischer, and Kasparov favored active piece play and openings that favored open and dynamic positions. 

Positional players like Karpov, Sierawan, and Petrosian like slower, more strategical play. Petrosian was the absolute best at simply taking away your counterplay and watching you lash out and become overextended.  He was the consumate defender and ws almost impossible to beat.

Fischer, on the other hand, never had bad pieces.  He strove for dynamic and active piece play.

Tactics and strategy are most certainly intertwined.  In my opinion, favorable tactics are the result of playing actively (and strategically).