Positional or Tactical: The path to Grandmaster

                   There is a debate about which is best way to improve, some teachers say studying tactics is the right path, others give more attention to positional understanding.

                    According to my experience both are essential, but positional factors matter more, When GM's play against computers they pay more attention to positional facots since in no way they can compete with computer tactical calculational abilities.

                    But since the spread of strong engines and countless variations, many have become accustomed to just talking in terms of variations (i take he takes i go here he goes here etc.) giving long lines, are we trying to emulate computers?

                   Once an amateur defeated capablanca, capa was asked how many moves he was able to see he said up to 10 moves! the amateur was asked the same questions he said one move, but the best move, giving a great hint that you don't need to calculate like computer to play a good game.

                   I admit there are positions that require exact calculations but the most don't need to be calculated more than 4 moves ahead max. take the example of Mikhail Tal who beat every notable GM he sometimes even sa-ed based on intuition and positional factors without regarding the lines as computers do.

               Finally most top GM like alekhine, kasparov, fischer etc. played outstanding positional chess and only put the finishing touch tactically, and in most cases seeing 4 moves ahead was sufficient to prove them they had enough compensation or advantage to go to a specific line, or else how'd you think top GM play against engines which calculate without any flaw or confusion countless variations...

            In conclusion i'm not saying that tactics are not important, but as Botvinnik stated tacticts are the servants of strategy.

The path to GM?  Both, and a lot of them.

The path to go from a C player to a B player?  Tactics.  And lot's of them!

I think this here is proof that if a story is repeated often enough, it gets really messed up.

tactical opportunities arise from superior positions therefore both of them are important

for a begginer in chess like me, am convince that understanding positional concepts first then followed by the application of tactical moves

This is true. Strategy or the positional skill is the highest skill possibly achieved by any chess player. But you cannot go there without tactics, so it doesn't matter which one is the servant and which one is the master.

Tactics and positional play should go hand in hand. They should synnergically reinforce each other. So it is important to choose which part of the tactics and which of the positional aspects to be mastered, and when, one after another.

Tactics is not just as simple as what you can learn in solving puzzles, there are more advanced tactical skills. So is positional skill.