I think of tactics as a great one or two shot combination that forks or skewers or pins, thus resulting in winning a piece OR a 1,2, or 3 move mate combo.   Seems these only happen 1, 2 or 3 times in a game.  Most moves in the game are positioning, defensive, etc.  Where's the 99% tactics?  

   If I do nothing but study 50-100 tactics problems a day, without much playing actual  games (no blitz, please)  then you mean I'll improve the most?  due to the 'chess is 99% tactics' statement? 

Richard Teichman's quote.  I prefer Joel Benjamins quote: Chess is 100% calculation"

The best description i have seen.

The Difference Between Chess Strategy and Tactics

Tactics and Strategy are often confused by chess beginners and novices. Here is an explanation of the two.

Tactics

A tactic is a short sequence of moves, usually involving an attack or capture, that attempts to make an immediate tangible gain. Tactics are the first thing you look for when considering any move. The common tactics have been given names to distinguish them. Some of the most common ones are:

• Forks
• Pins
• Skewers
• Discovered Attacks
• Removing the Guard

Strategy

When you aren't able to take advantage of a tactic, you turn to strategy. A strategy is a long term plan or idea. It is usually based on positional considerations, rather than attacks and captures. Some of the common positional elements that form the basis for strategy are:

• Piece Mobility
• Piece Safety
• King Safety
• Pawn Structure

Tactics and strategy are intertwined with one another. Strategic moves often have the objective of setting up future tactical maneuvers, and vise versa.

For the novice player, tactics is by far the more important consideration. Almost all games below the master level are won and lost through tactical mistakes. This thought should guide the study of the improving player. If you want to improve fast, study tactics!

Roughly translated, it means that 1% of chess games are decided by some arbitrary skill, such as the ability to juggle, blow rings with smoke, or perform souble-dutch jump rope.

Oh sure I might as well get in early on this one...Heard IM Danny Rensch explain lines in the recent blitz going 10, 12 moves deep before the actual tactic.  We all know Danny gets a little fanboy around superGMs, but he was literally gushing over how far ahead each was seeing and the little traps they were sidestepping.  Great match and commentary BTW. So do you include all the setup from the time the tactic is seen until you spring it?  Where does a tactic begin and end?  Heisman always used to say on his show that if you could write a book about the question, he wasn't going to answer it in one show (or try to).  

Or maybe this is a statement more about awareness than anything else; concrete calculation of course but also the practiced art of perceiving weakness at lower levels and inducing it at higher.

Thanks GodsPawn, and I know the diff. btw these two, Tactics and Strategy.  So the statement "Chess is 99% Tactics" is wrong? 

   a) will I get 200 pts improvement in my rating the quickest, if I do 500 to 1000 tactics and then do the same set of those about 10 times until I have good recognition of them?

   b) or keep painstakingly sludging through Nimzo's 'My System'?  where he teaches positional chess. 

I wouldnt necessariy say its wrong, I think it illustrates the importance of tactics until youre Master strength, where strategy kinda takes over.

I think one of the worst mistakes people make regarding tactics is "quantity over quality"  It will do you no good to do hundreds, and thousands of tactics if you dont understand each one.  I wouldnt fixate on a certain rating increase based on "X" number of tactics.  Afterall, we are all different and learn at different rates.  This is what i do:

i set up a tactic on a real board with real pieces.

Once i miss 3 tactics i stop, and review the 3 i missed until i thouroughly understand them.  

if you choose to do tactics online (which is perfectly fine) Give yourself 2 minutes to solve them.  If after 2 minutes you cant solve one, then set it up on a real board with real pieces.  

Study both.  Tactics are essential, and Nimzovich's book is a classic for a reason.  

Good Luck!

It means that the other 1% is inspiration. Here's the full quote:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quotchess-is-1-inspiration-and-99-tacticsquot

Everything else is built on tactics. A good position is good based on the tactical possibilities it contains. So positional play is simply long-range tactical play. Openings are built out of the tactical possibilities they create. Endgames are nothing but tactics in the endgame. 

It's kind of like saying a brick wall is built out of bricks. yes you have to plan it and do the work, but it's still built out of bricks

I guess it's referring to the fact that if you're not seeing nearly all 2 to 3 move combos (at least the simple ones) you can't play well no matter how much you know of everything else.

But tactics and strategy mix during a game and in variations you calculate. The only time you're playing pure tactics is in that 2 or 3 move combo you use to win a lot of material or mate. So no, only knowing tactics is not enough. You could say tactics are necessary, but not sufficient.

That's... not true at all

I guess it gets a little philosophical, but for example I characterize it completely differently. Take the basics: checkmate and values of the pieces. Where do they come from? Controlling squares. Piece activity. This is closer to something fundamental you can build everything else on.

Tactics are often subservient to strategy, but yes, it can be the other way around too. However if we want to talk elements, then IMO tactics isn't in the conversation. Yes it's a basic skill, but it's not what chess is built on.

If you can't do both, you're not doing anything yet. You wont gain much strength (rating points) if you have huge holes in your understanding / ability.

When in doubt, study your weak areas. If everything is weak, then study what's fun

Binary:  I think my positional and opening game is ahead of my tactics, so that's where I'll be the next 3 months.

I didn't know T. Edison came up with the saying.  Maybe HE didn't understand tactics so much.   Here's my new saying:

"Chess is 80% positional/strategy play and 20% tactics.  The rest is openings."  Orangutan Kid. 

Wow! You make more sense than Thomas Edison!

No, everyone is stupid on here.

Chess is 100% percent tactics.

How do you convert a position? With tactics!

THINK ABOUT IT KIDS, AND THEN THANK ME!

One of the best things about chess is: our opponents are often just as bad as us! (The ones with similar ratings anyway). So we can still have fun games even if we're not so good.

Pretty much the saving grace for anyone who isn't a pro

I see no fun in being bad at chess, but I do see fun in improving and solving the game so I can get a life, a girlfriend, kids and a job.

Sometimes I think we should all give up on chess, we are doing nothing positive for the world (at least those who take chess religiously).

I think I should code, find a cure to cancer, or become a politician, but then I remember the meaning of life.

Be happy!