I think you're on the right track here. Note that I'm not a chess expert by any means, but the way I understand it, you have to have a least a basic knowledge of both positions and tactics to play even at a modest level and succeed. Tactics will allow you to execute pins, forks, combinations, x-rays, etc., while your positional knowledge will help you get your pieces in the right places eariler to even be able to exploit those holes your opponent leaves.
The distinction that I see between high-level chess and the level that I am at is that if my position is 100% sound, I still have a decent chance at winning. Simply put, players at my level aren't going to be able to look at a position and attack every little weakness (mainly because their openings won't be flawless, either, or at least their execution beyond the book won't be). When I analyze my games here on Chess.com, I see that I play lots of moves that are good, but not the best available, which is probably why I'm still sub-1500. The main reason I win or lose games is some sort of tactical device.
At a much higher level, where players memorize lines and lines of theory, the positional knowledge would be much more important, hence de la Maza's comment. The tactics would be expected, but the amount of theory memorized on different openings would be what allows them to even get to those tactics in the first place.
Again, this is just IMHO, and I'm sure players rated much higher than myself would have much more to say about this, but there's my two cents.
Positional vs. Tactical Chess
I am also not a high ranked player but I try my best to play positionally in these sense that I don't break Chess "logic" for pieces (as you said a knight that cannot be kicked from the 6th row with support is generally good). Unless you are expecting your opponent to make a blunder and take advantage of it (happens often in sub 1500 games) tactics don't normally fall into your lap, work has to be done to be able to have one.
Honestly, I think these sorts of discussion are a bit tedious (and on the whole rather pointless). My guess is that teachers emphasize tactics early on because it is something that can much more readily be seen and demonstrated than positional play. Once you see a couple hundred mating attacks then you can begin to get a feel for how strong it is to put pieces in the vicinity of your opponent's king.
The same with a knight outpost. I've had many a game where a good-looking knight just sits there hitting air the whole time while I'm getting clobbered on some other section of the board. If you can't see the tactics that go along with that (hopefully) advantageous knight position, putting it on that square isn't going to mean much to you.
Surely there must be other concrete examples that would show both "positional" and "tactical" chess.
Maybe. But only if you've played a bunch of games are you likely to know what to do concretely with that positional advantage. And until then, how do you even know that a positional advantage is an advantage?
you can't distinguish them, you need to be good in both of them. tactical opportunities arise from superior position. good luck 
I think what AndyClifton is trying to say is that without a solid tactical foundation, any positional "advantage" for a class player is pretty much going to fall flat on it's face against the stronger players. 
Personally I will never disregard positional principles altogether, but at the level most class players are, tactical knowledge should take preference. As well as end game knowledge, as that involves a lot of tactics as well.
Also, I think that if I were to follow a study program that involves doing only tactical puzzles eight hours a day, I would start crying after week 1. 
These redundant discussions of positional vs. tactical chess amaze me. It amazes me why anyone that wants to improve at something will only study one part of something.
Hi Godspawn, could you please clarify what you meant by only studying "one part of something"? Do you agree that one should follow a program similar to the "Rapid Chess Improvement" program and stick to tactics until you are say an expert player?
You can't completely separate chess into its elements and expect to succeed by leaving one out of your play. All of the elements work together in various ways, depending on the position on the board.
I believe the idea isn't to ignore positional considerations, but rather to concentrate on tactics until you are proficient at recognizing the basic ones at least. This is because most new and improving players lose nearly all their games due to a tactical oversight or four. Understanding Nimzowitsch's Theory of Prophylaxis or Euwe's formulation of the Positional Preponderance in the Center won't help you at all if you drop Knights and Queens and overlook mate threats.
Exactly. I think that's the point that people have been trying to make on this thread. Tactics are maybe somewhat more important to beginners, but you will hit a point where you have to know the positions as well.
Godspawn, I don't think anyone was suggesting to study only tactics or only positional principles. The original question wasn't, "Should I study tactics or positions?", but was looking to understand the definitions of each a little better. And this isn't a "redundant discussion" - many chess players don't know what the differences between tactics and positions are. I agree with you, though, that it's pointless to try to argue which one should be studied exclusively - that obviously won't get anyone anywhere.
What is very noticeable in that game is that Tal deliberately played a theoretical bad move of bringing the N to the side of the board with 2.Na3. And more noticeable is the fact that this very N coming from b1 is responsible for the destruction of Black's Kingside with 8.Nf6+
Is that not "positional chess"? That N could not have travelled to the squares e3, g4, and ultimately to f6 if Tal played 2.Nd2 (a move that general chess theory recommends).
Yeres, I disagree sort of, but i think I agree with your overall point (I'm not 100% confident I understood it.) About "Na3" as being a theoretically bad move... well not really (I'm familiar with the saying "a N on the rim is dim" -- but that doesn't apply here) -- it's textbook positional play -- If Tal left his N on a3 that would be one thing, but of course Na3 is just the beginning of a manuver... a manuver theorized and approved of by Steinitz. According to Steinitz, when the center is locked up (as in the Tal game) producing a relatively 'slow' position, it is often possible and advantageous to understake slow procedures, such as protracted N manuvers, in order to improve a piece or create an ideal placement of pieces (a fantasy position Silman calls them) -- Na3 is I think a very clear example of just such a procedure. What's mysterious and wonderful to a patzer like me is that Tal understands the position well enough to know Nd2 isn't going to get his N to the squares he wants, the Na3-Nc2 etc manuver is needed. You can't call it a tatical calculation because Tal simply cannot calculate lines that include several completely unforced moves by his opponent. He can foresee however that his N will be hitting important squares (like f6) when it gets to the Kingside. What allows him to see that is some mix of calculation, judgement and imagination -- a quality that never seems to enter into these discussions of positional vs tactical chess, but it's a quality that great players posess in abundance.
In another thread I mentioned that I thought Tal was a great positional player and that the fireworks in his games result as much (if not more) from Tals positional conceptions as his tactical. That finish you gave is perfect illustration.
Of course, I think your overall point was that Na3 is positional... so I doubt I'm telling you anything you don't know! But perhaps my explanation will help elucidate things for others.
You ask your questions as if you can either play tacticaly or positionally but not both. The answer to all your questions is both. Unless you play tacticaly you will lose. Tactics decide chess. If you don't play positionally then you will be fine for quite a while but soon there won't be any tactics that favor you.
Dealing in absolutes wil only slow you down. The only thing that is black and white in chess are the pieces.
I looked into de la Maza'a book, and the first thing that struck me was that is sounded like endless, joyless drudgery. The idea that you should ignore strategy and positional play and simply solve the same tactical problems over and over again sounded more like a jail sentence that a method of chess improvement.
+1 
If you have something to say what in your mind is your definition of "positional chess" or "tactical chess", then say it. And what I was saying is that show examples of what in your mind you mean by "positional chess" or "tactical chess". "Positional advantage" is an altogether another topic.
It is? Sure sounds like the same thing to me. You can't play "positional chess" unless you know a bunch of tactics so you can use (and convert) your positional play. You won't even know what you're aiming for (much less why).
Tactical Chess is knowing what to do when there is something to do.
Positional Chess is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.
- Tartakower (? Not sure)
Nuff' said.
You can't seperate them entirely, but to me, the distinction is easy enough:
If you ask me why I made a move, and my answer is a set of moves, with maybe a few variations, where I'm endng it having won something -- be that something a square for a piece or some other concession or material -- then it is tactical.
If you ask me why I made a move, and my answer is a natural language sentence offering a general principal I"m trying to employ, then it's positional.
One of the problems is that the word "positional" embodies two concepts. The first, as it's used to compare to tactical, means making a move on the basis of general principals not because we see a winning line based on that move, but because we know through the accumulation of statistical tendancies that the choice is probably good. Things like "rooks belong on open files," and "knights make good blockaders" are positional reasons for moves.
The other concept is the idea of a state advantage on the chess board. Control of a file, or a blockaded pawn, for example, are positional factors that come to bear in the evaulation of a position. We might often use tactics to achieve an advantage on teh chess board, and that advantage is often a positional (in this second sense) one.
These two concepts are similar, but they are not the same. And this leads to a lot of confusion when talking about "tactical" versus "positional" moves.
I used to be a tactic freak (going for reckless king attacks), but
Lately I've started enjoying games just making my pieces well developped - and then tactics will come along the way I've noticed.
I used to be a tactic freak (going for reckless king attacks), but
Lately I've started enjoying games just making my pieces well developped - and then tactics will come along the way I've noticed.
Also my experience. Tactics are often the reward for patient play.
Kingscrusher often talks about "strategic crush" and comments in this recently posted game that his opponent "... is a bit tactical. Strategically it is pretty pleasant for me."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_LicpHPwv4
Nuff' said.
lol...talk about a forums neophyte...
I rececently “skimmed” through the book “Rapid Chess Improvement” by de la Maza. From the little bit that I read, the author claims that one should ignore positional concepts until you are rated around 2000 and only focus on tactics.
I think by this time we are all bored to tears by the aged-old discussion between Silman’s books and de la Maza’s book, and I am not interested in discussing which is better at all. I’m busy studying a bit of positional chess as well as a tactics.
But consider the following game situation. I see a good support square for my knight. No pawns can attack the knight on that particular square, and it might cause problems for my opponent later on in the game. I don’t know as of yet what particular problems it will cause, all I know at that point is that the knight will be roosting on, say, the sixth rank, controlling a lot of squares in my enemy’s camp. I got space on my queen-side of the board and decide to mobilise the rest of my pieces on that particular side. I would assume that the little bit of positional knowledge I have told me this.
My opponent makes a move, and I realize that he is hanging a pawn. A two-move tactic will ensure me being a pawn up. I would assume that the little bit of tactical knowledge I possess, enabled me to spot and calculate the solution. I proceed to take the pawn, and now continue with my plan to get my knight it’s ideal square.
Was I playing positional chess or tactical chess? Or is true positional chess something that exists only at a really high level of chess?
Sometimes I will make moves that will simply push my opponent back, cramping his space, and sometimes, if I’m lucky, they blunder based on their lack of space, or because they can’t move a knight or a bishop because it is blocked. Have I won the game because I’m positionally better than my opponent, or tactically superior?
I would think that if I only studied tactics I would have never placed my knight on the sixth rank. Also, I would assume that if I only focused on positional chess, my opponent would rip through me like a chainsaw, eating whatever pieces I’m either hanging, or is pinned.
I would like to hear some opinons on this.