Positional vs. Tactical Chess

What i found interesting is after running my games through Fritz i found that roughly 60% of my USCF C class games were decided by tactics.  And now that im a B player 30% of my games are decided by tactics. 

I know the "positional" vs. "Tactical" arguement has been beaten to death here, but i dont know how anyone can only want to study half of the game. 

While mulling this over, and a few other things I have seen on Chess.com related to chess education/ability, that seem to have, perhaps two schools of thought pertaining to it, it seems that either some people have a preference for some reason, or want to sound as if they know what they are talking about, even if they don't, or even may be trying to keep potential competition in the dark.

The last of those really jumps out at me about certain individuals. They seem to be the type who literally would use anything to their advantage, including encouraging you to feel as if, by virtue you are obligated to adhering to "theories" they believe to be best, keeping you half way prepared for being able to beat them. Something tells me they have done some of the very things, they tell you not to, it has helped them and they know it will help you. In the dog eat dog world of the fierce chess competition, it seems like a bone that some prefer to chew on.

If we bring this discussion to the next level, what we have is chess as an art vs chess as a science. People like Kasparov bring creativity in solving problems on the chess board, while people like Karpov prefer logical thinking. I guess in the end it comes down to individual's character and preference. 

Most chessplayers can execute a 5 move tactical combination, but very few players  (myself included) can tell you what is the proper Plan in any givin position. Among equal players tactics will generally evolve from a strategically superior position . (i.e.) If you have castled kingside and i with the white pieces post a Knight at (f6) that can't be removed or exchanged in the midde game, and all other factors are equal it could be said that black's position is strategically lost .

       The positional superiority of the Knight generates tactical complications for the black king ( the combinations almost play themselves). Strong so-called "positional" players would be a very tough opponent for people who rely on the 99% tactical solution.    lol

You're accusing chessplayers of this?!  Why, I refuse to even consider such an absurd possibility!

I would like to believe you, but an entire forum dedicated to listing cheaters, throws my naitivity out the window, in favor of the idea that some people have no honor and will do " anything" to be one step closer to the best they can be...or well, in their deluded mind.

Perhaps the better analogy of the cheater's true results is, they actually keep you one step away from being the best you can be, without being any better themselves, hmmm, sounds like the same M.O. of someone who would blatantly confuse or mislead others involving application of theory.

Your detecto-thingy seems to be broken.  Here, you can read mine instead.  Let me hold it a little closer to Andy's post for you... there we go...

I realized he was being sarcastic. I like using words to prove things that others can choose to live in denial over or to convince a jury of my peers. I get tired of people who think they deserve to somehow be superior to others, by things like lying,stealing cheating,etc.

24.Qg3 g5 25.h4 woulda been very uncomfortable for black

Well, I laughed anyway, wafflle...even if some seemingly had grander things on their minds... 

Thanks.

...So grand in fact that I don't quote follow

Yes, that did get a bit stratospheric in places. 

@ waffllemaster @ AndyClifton

It isn't that I didn't find any humor in the way you chose to express that idea. I tend to express the emotion I that I don't feel like harboring, at a point in which I feel more than one.Besides, I felt mocked, as much as agreed with.

If you think that everyone is aware that, some people are so despicable, while being a representative of a game, that is generally thought of as a gentleman's game or a game of honor, it would be as condescending for me to treat you, as if you have no right to assume that everyone is aware that people are so devious, as it would be for you to treat me as I am a dweeb because, I feel the need to point it out. Sorry, I'm not sure what kind of detector to offer for that. I don't normally need one for anything.

Hey wafflle, did you follow any of that? lol

I don't think you're a dweeb, just seems you're going off on personal monologues that don't necessarily fit into the current discussion so it's not easy for the rest of us to follow.

If I could only see the nuances of chess moves, as well as human relation,oh well..... maybe you'd be inclined to agree without feeling, you yourselves, had to understand in order to agree, but then again, wasn't that the basis of my original idea, the problem with people potentially misleading people, or do you guys need a detector?

Uh-oh, the trapper trapped (a propensity to babble, and funny to boot).

Oops, my bad.  I was just skimming some of your posts, so I didn't catch on.

In chess there is one overriding principle:

Winning chess is the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

This is so because pawns are the only ones that cannot move backwards.

At the end of correct positional(strategic) plans which are the limbs and branches are the tactics which are the leaves.

@ AndyClifton @waffllemaster

Its in my nature to be analytical, long winded, and to refuse to be gotten the better of, without atleast giving a little back...

I will atleast tell you,I give you both some props though...

I look at it this way, If you can't get out of bed each day and atleast give one person a hard time, just for the fun of it, you might as well stay in bed, maybe you'll have better luck there....