1. Yes, to some extent. However, if in your bad position you have a powerful tactic, it will give you a good position.
2. Most mainstream opening main lines end up with a fairly solid position, and you must keep that solid position while looking at all the tactics that will improve your position/material against your opponents.
The problem is that you are trying to separate connected ideas. Imagine a fight ok. The goal is to knock the other guy out right? To throw a good punch (tactics), you have to have a good spacial distance (position). There is always this constant arguement of tactics vs position. There is NO such thing as separation, it is a ghost!! Just picture a guy throwing fantastically hard punches.... in the first row of spectators, it's hard to win. Then there's the flip side of this isolation idea, how about a guy whose opponent has his hands down by his side, his chin leaned forward... but the other guy's not punching! Trying to have separate idea of tactics and positional ideas in chess is just as absurd. There is no one or other, there is both coexsisting!!!
Oh, I get it; a dicotomy.
dwaxe wrote:
1. Yes, to some extent. However, if in your bad position you have a powerful tactic, it will give you a good position.
Not exactly. If you have a "bad position" but have a powerful tactical combination that gives you a good position, you actually have a good position to start with.
You may have a truly bad position, but if your opponent blunders and allows you a powerful tactical combination, then your opponent has allowed you to transform your bad position into a good position. Blunders can do this, regardless of whether the transformation comes from a tactical move or a strategic move.
Tactics is the enforcing technique of strategy.
I heard it once said "Tactics mean nothing if one does not have a good position to begin with."Is this true?
Is a position arrived at during the openning? Or are tactical traps pitfalls and swindles the undoing of an opponents position.