I know that positional chess and tactical chess are both important and you need both to win a game. But I also believe that they must be separated because tactics can achieve the game's preferred end state, which is checkmate, while positional play does not. Positional play can lead you there and gets you those tactical chances but it can never win by itself. Tactics on the other hand can end a game immediately and often for no other reason than the fact that two pieces are attacking something that is defended only once.
What I have read from professional players, and have seen for myself, is that most games are decided by blunders. And these blunders come from tactical oversights or just weak tactical vision in general. Because of this tactics must be the most important subject for amateurs because they can simply end a game. But here is the rub: most people don't become 2000 rated and getting there isn't really a guarantee of tactical proficiency anyway. Even professional players do tactics puzzles.
So the way I see it chess for most people is a mostly tactical game until you reach 2000 and then when blunders are less frequent positional play starts to become relevant due to the fact that rogue tactical shots are not enough to win anymore or at least consistently. I am constantly reminded of this in my games and it's getting a bit tiresome. As someone who was told about all the strategy of chess, I feel a bit slighted that I may never really be able to actually participate in that. After all, who cares how often you can get positional advantages if you consistently blunder them away? Getting a positional advantage is not the win condition of chess, checkmate is and that requires tactics.
I just played a game recently and lost on time in this position with the Black pieces:
[FEN]r3k2r/1ppb1pp1/p1pb4/7p/3NP1nq/1P2P2P/PBP2PP1/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 13[FEN]
I was so frustrated that I couldn't find a winning attack that I just sat there and stared at the board and if I couldn't find the correct continuation then I'd just take the loss. I felt that if I couldn't figure out how to play in this winning position then my play in other positions that weren't winning wouldn't mean anything at all. I didn't care about the result of the game anymore - I needed to find this move because if I didn't then maybe I was just wasting my time.
I like chess but it seems to me that if the tactics aren't on point all the other stuff doesn't matter at all and you're just not going to be able to see the game for what it really is.
What I have read from professional players, and have seen for myself, is that most games are decided by blunders. And these blunders come from tactical oversights or just weak tactical vision in general. Because of this tactics must be the most important subject for amateurs because they can simply end a game. But here is the rub: most people don't become 2000 rated and getting there isn't really a guarantee of tactical proficiency anyway. Even professional players do tactics puzzles.
So the way I see it chess for most people is a mostly tactical game until you reach 2000 and then when blunders are less frequent positional play starts to become relevant due to the fact that rogue tactical shots are not enough to win anymore or at least consistently. I am constantly reminded of this in my games and it's getting a bit tiresome. As someone who was told about all the strategy of chess, I feel a bit slighted that I may never really be able to actually participate in that. After all, who cares how often you can get positional advantages if you consistently blunder them away? Getting a positional advantage is not the win condition of chess, checkmate is and that requires tactics.
I just played a game recently and lost on time in this position with the Black pieces:
[FEN]r3k2r/1ppb1pp1/p1pb4/7p/3NP1nq/1P2P2P/PBP2PP1/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 13[FEN]
I was so frustrated that I couldn't find a winning attack that I just sat there and stared at the board and if I couldn't find the correct continuation then I'd just take the loss. I felt that if I couldn't figure out how to play in this winning position then my play in other positions that weren't winning wouldn't mean anything at all. I didn't care about the result of the game anymore - I needed to find this move because if I didn't then maybe I was just wasting my time.
I like chess but it seems to me that if the tactics aren't on point all the other stuff doesn't matter at all and you're just not going to be able to see the game for what it really is.