Questions to ask before each move
"Should I play a more postitional or tactical move in this position?"
Really? If I were to ask myself that question, my reply would likely be, "What the hell are you talking about? Make the best move you can find!"
after your opponent moves, try to identify why that move was strong, and why it was weak. (most moves are both, to some degree.)
if you try to figure out why your opponents moves are weak, it should help you plan your tactics.
just apply basic chess theory. either that, or memorize countless lines. 
This isn't about just making the best move you can find. I would hope that any player would have at least that much common sense not to play a weaker move according to their calculations. As you get better your calculated best move becomes more accurate. There are questions that can be asked to help you decide that calculation. Perhaps the questions I said are flawed, as I expect/know they are (hence the creation of this thread), but it is a little more complicated than that.
You military fellas sure love your lingo, don't ya'?
Forget about "positional" chess. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Is the tactics must come first a true must or more of a rule of thumb? I am sure there are exceptions but I think this example brings up some points that make the question I stated may have to come to mind and also explains a type of scenario that I get confused on. Lets say the white knight is able to land a king rook fork on c7 without any opposition, but you see is that your opponent has a positional advantage on the kingside that looks dangerous but is still a little foggy in a closed middlegame. You have a seemingly weaker attack brewing on the queenside. Since the knight is secure and controls more important defensive squares on d5 and the undeveloped rook is not part of blacks attack, should you use the fork and win material or go with a more positional defensive move? These are the type of situations that get me. If white can survive blacks attack he will be ahead in material and have good odds. Calculating whether or not it is worth it and if you can survive or not in a very positional closed middlegame is just way over my head right now.
It's way over everybody's head. That's why variations like that goofy Vienna Game with the exchange sac (sorry, don't remember the moves) rage on for years.
That's why you have to play a bunch of games to find out...it's not anything that can be answered right off the bat like that.
I have edited the positional/tactical question out. This might be a good question to ask based on the feed back recieved.
Is there a line of attack I have used successfully in a similar position?
If it's against the same opponent, I don't suggest you try it.
The question I ask myself every time my opponent makes a move is:
1)Why did he do that?
If there is no threat that I can find, I select a move. Then:
2)Is that a blunder?
3)What do I gain by doing that?
4)Is there a better move?
If I answer 2) and 4) with "no" and I can actually answer 3), then I'll make the move.
"What's he got?" usually followed by "f**k all. What do I have?"
Funnily enough, this question is also usually followed by "f**k all".
So that's where I've been going wrong, I've been trying to make the worse moves I can make.
Thanks! :)
Ok its the opening so I would do well do develop my minor pieces.
Ok each of my minor pieces are out. Are they attacking any of my opponents pieces ? Do I see any tactical play ? Are any of my pieces in danger ? Should I continue developing ? Do I have a better space advantage ?.....What !?.....I just lost on time...crap....:)
