Tactical or Positional??

What wins out more often?

Thanks. Nice opening

Tactics and strategy are two sides of the same coin.   Without strategic play, you'll not likely be in a position to find winning tactics.   Oppositely, strategic play ONLY will fall victim to tactics sooner or later.  

Or, in the words of Tartakover:  Tactics is what you do when there's something to do, strategy is what you do when there's nothing to do.  

What is more important when crossing an intersection, watching out for other cars or waiting for the light to turn green?

Waiting for the light to turn green.

Nice. All great points

Depends on the intersection! ;)

Tactics rule the roost, but when you and your opponent see all the tactics and play to avoid them, what's left?  Positional chess.  Strong positional chess eventually leads to great tactics.  It's a ying and yang thang.     

Ying and yang thang... THAT RHYMES!

Both. But neither.

The way I look at it tactics = instant strategy, for instance mate-in-5 or a combination that wins material to name just a few examples. Tactics also equates to attacking or counter-attacking more so than defensive play (IMHO)

Strategy = formulating plans based on positional considerations. For instance after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.ed5 ed5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 (D44, QGD - Tarrasch Defense - Schlecter-Rubinstein Var) White's long-term goal is to continue putting pressure on the IQP until he wins it or possibly weakens Black's position in another sector because too many pieces are tied up defending the IQP. Strategic plans aren't always as precise as tactical combinations and may rely on general principles such as advancing passed pawns as rapidly as possible; trading off pieces when you're a pawn up and trading off pawns when you're a pawn down etc etc.

Tactics are easier for most of us amateurs to learn and employ IMHO partly because they involve pattern recognition in many cases (back rank mate threats for one example). Positional play is harder because it doesn't always involve exact combinations and is a lot harder to grasp overall - as in what do you do when there's nothing obvious to do? Besides agreeing to a draw that is :=)...

In the long run I believe the greatest tacticians will tend to come out "second best" vs the greatest positional players most of the time. For instance Marshall got creamed in matches vs Lasker, Capablanca and Tarrasch - partly because they could prevent him from reaching positions favorable for tactics and partly because they could easily match Marshall in tactical ability when they had to - which wasn't very often since they were quite adept at steering most games away from positions in which Marshall excelled.

Some great tactician "role models" inc: Anderssen, Morphy, Tal, Bronstein, Alekhine, Spielmann, Marshall and IM Rashid Nezhmetdinov (for starters)

Some great positional player "role models" inc: Capablanca, Smyslov, Petrosian, Kramnik, Karpov and Kasparov - for starters.

And of course any WCHs I haven't mentioned are all worth adopting as "role models" for tactics, strategy, attacking and defensive skills even the often maligned "weakie" Euwe was way more impressive in his heyday than most of us give him credit for.

I came across a fascinating article that evaluates the WCHs playing styles in terms of "blunder rate" "complexity measurement" "best moves played compared to PC analysis" and other factors more specific than just lumping everything under tactics and strategy.

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4003455

It's a circle. Many tactics, though not winning material, will help you achieve positional gains. And then, in a good position, there will be winning tactics.

How can you evaluate a position after a combination if you don't have an understanding of the positional aspects of the game?

And how can you convert a strategically winning position without knowing and finding tactics?

Tactics and positional play are inseparable. You will need both to win, unless of course your opponent makes some major blunders.

Great food for thought. Thanks

in the words of botvinnik 'tactics serves strategy'

Among weak players, tactics predominates. Among GMs, positional play wins more games.

Tactics. Games are 99% tactics.

Thanks Ziryab. Great motivational words.

Help! Help! Help me play vs 2000. Positional, Tactical, gambit, I don't care. Everything's wrong.

Lol

2000s have it all. They play positionally to set up tactics that knock you senseless. They are unbeatable (unless you're 2100).