Only 1% of chess games is won by tactics some say.

Endgame technique isn't quite the opposite of tactical skill, so chess being "99% tactics" doesn't rule out that it could be "90% endgame technique" at the same time... ;)

I disagree quite a lot with you there. Even your game is 90% positional play

Lets begin with 4. ... Bb4+?! Well fine, engine won'T bother with taht or call it a mistake- but from a strategical point, what is the point of it? You dont want to exchange knight vs bishop, so yeah, positional mistake. Well, you can save yourself ofc later due to other features, but the reason is, you got that messsy position just due to your positional "mistakes"Sorry that I do not have the time to analyse your game in depth, but if you would have played positionally better you would eiether a)have crushed your opponent or b)your opponent would be as positional strong as you are and it would end up in a long positional fight wih a deep engame, like in gm games...

Most of us including me won’t win a blitz game a piece up from the beginning against a modern engine unleashed. Wrong strategy?

Nevertheless: all that matters on the chessboard is good moves.

Well I will wina blitz game against a modenr engine. Probably 1 pawn is not enough. So yes, if you struggel to win against an engine with a piece up, that absolutely lies in your ability to judge decisions on the board, aka you are not strong enough. Or back to the topic- your positional understanding is not strong enough, since objectivly nothing in the world can upset the positional advantage of having a piece more

I call all the interactions (simple) tactics according to the „big-game“ trainers Jussupow and Dvoretzky, they call them „einfache Taktik“. There is certainly a Russian term. And citing them once again, good „positional“ play is founded on small tactics. Pieces are „positionally“ well placed because of their tactical abilities right on that places.

So, the often repeated „Chess is 99% tactics“ is 100% true.^^

Ich meine, Du Deine! ;)

Much of the debate surrounds peoples "definition" of tactics. To some, tactics exist in every move after a few opening moves. After 1.e4 e5. 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 and it can be said tactics are in play as a combination temporarily wins a pawn.
Chess games exist of strategy and tactics. Calculating "best moves" one side says are tactics, another side says differently. Positional play, defensive moves, coordination of the pieces, there exists many facets of positional play that should not be defined as tactical play.
But to each his own. I'm only pointing out not everyone agrees on what constitutes tactics and the percentage of moves in chess games that are defined as such. Generally speaking, my understanding of the necessity to calculate possible tactics is due to the existence of combinations that lead to a substantial advantage. More often other considerations go into choosing a good move as gaining an advantage is not possible at every turn.

In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves that limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted with strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less constrained in responding.
Chess tactic - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic

@Sarg0n
Sehr interessant dass du den ehrenwerten GM Jussupow reinbringst. Ich bin sein 'Angestellter' in der Schachakademie, und seine Frau ist meine Trainerin. Und den russischen Term kenne ich auch. Du hast die Hausaufgaben gut gemacht, wenn auch ich dir weiterhin nicht zustimmen kann (einfache Taktik ist bewusst einfache genannt, im Sinne von, sie hat nur nebensächlich was mit Taktik zu tun ;) ) . Da du eigentlich schon recht gut die Terme kennst kann ich sagen dass deine Meinung begründet ist und daher will ich dich nicht vom Gegenteil überzeugen.

Aber es ist dennoch offensichtlich dass du unrecht hast^^

@Strategymaster #12
Thanks for your comment.
About 4...Bb4+ : My aim with that move was fast development (short castle, bringing rook to e8) rather than anything else.
Yes, the game was with mistakes and blunders, but also with possibly fun moments for the amateur chess player.
And I shared my blitz game full of mistakes simply because I like to share games, especially when there's a few tactics involved.

It seems harsh to criticize 4...Bb4+ as a strategic mistake. 4...Be7 is the normal move, but 4...Bb4+ has also been played at grandmaster level. The bishop will not exchange, but move to c5 in the game or maybe to f8 after ...Re8, so it does not seem that important.
lichess.org/L1962VlP/#8

And yet, my personal experience (IM Jaroslaw Krassowizkij), in mentioning GM Niclas Huschenbeth who is playing Queens Gambit accepted to this position-
There is a lot of theory regarding this, but if we are talking about the 'best objective' play for black, that is the very best there is, so Bb4+ is not as a clearcut path to the draw as other moves. In practical chess there might be a reason not to play Equal positions for GMs (since it might lead to a draw they do not want to have even as black).
But in regards of the initial question. only Bd6 is engineproof correct and in terms of human thinking it is also the most logical move. So- with best moves you will not struggle, and positional playing might be enough to finish the game