is it harder to be a positional master then a tactical master

Putting ten slightly unlucky instances, as well as some 90 odd rating points aside, there is no doubt that Naka is equal to Carlsen... 

Why the need for a dichotomy?  Everyone at such a level has a great positional and tactical understanding.  Both are employed for the demands of the position and calculation and planning. 

And no, it isn't harder per se but might be for some people.  The goal in the end is to reach a superior endgame anyway unless something goes horribly wrong somewhere before that to allow a mating attack.  Even then an attack on a king is only a tool employed within the context of obtaining long term advantages such as superior pawn structure. 

Playing tactically is finding a move to play given the not so quite soundness of a given position...when there is nothing inherintly wrong with the position there are no tactics. Playing positionally is finding a move or sequence of moves when there is nothing to do!!...no tactics, no fireworks. Putting the pieces on their best squares for maximum effectiveness given the chosen plan.

Versus reversing the order?

So you are saying Carlsen's manners could use some improvement ?

Yoiu mean letting Naka win once? Well, that would surely be a great gesture...

As a lowly USCF A player,  would like to add my unqualified opinion on this. 

In My Opinon, and i must stress this part because i understand that no matter what MY OPINION is, it will upset someone.

I think its easier to understand/learn/spot tactics, than it is to understand/learn/spot positional/strategic ideas.  Am i taking anything away form tactics?  Obviuously not, its just one mans opinion.

Different minds work differently. Chess talent, more generally intelligence, is a quality, not a quantity. You are the best expert on what is easy for you, but not anyone else. I feel that I understand tactics well, but often I am not alert to spot them. Insofar as a player at my level can claim to have a forte it would be methodical positional play.

I_Am_Second wrote:

As a lowly USCF A player,  would like to add my unqualified opinion on this. 

In My Opinon, and i must stress this part because i understand that no matter what MY OPINION is, it will upset someone.

I think its easier to understand/learn/spot tactics, than it is to understand/learn/spot positional/strategic ideas.  Am i taking anything away form tactics?  Obviuously not, its just one mans opinion.

I'd say I am positionally better than many players here

carlsen once had a closed door 40 game blitz match with naka, the results of which is still officially undisclosed, but rumor has it carlsen won the duel 23.5-16.5, which is a likely outcome. carsen is the classical, rapid and blitz champion for a reason.

nakamura is good at online bullet trickery, with the mouse, but when it comes to rapid/blitz with other big fishes, he is okay as expected ratingwise, but not out-of-the-world, as his fans want to claim. naka comes out okay, but rarely beats everyone else in a top level blitz event.

and naka never beat carlsen in a classical game, so him being better can not be substantiated.

Positional understanding: complex, lots of differant variables, lots of calculation, so on

Tactical understanding: move a piece to fork, discover check, decoy so on

Tactics are easier