What is the difference between Strategic play and Positional play? Aren't they the same thing?

#28 - interesting question.

Looking at the fxe4 sacrifice in particular, Stockfish obviously has a lot of concrete lines, most of which seem to end up with a material advantage for black somewhere within its horizon. So if you can calculate like Stockfish then it's a tactical decision.

As described by Nimzovitch in his annotation, it sounds more like a purely positional decision - the positional advantages that black enjoys after Rxf2 are clearly worth investing a knight for two pawns to get, no further analysis needed.

Finally, and I'm not sure about this, I'd guess that in practice, unless Nimzovitch was calculating like Stockfish, it'd be closer to what Aagaard means by a "strategic" move - it's played for a positional advantage rather than immediate material win or checkmate, but some nontrivial calculation would have been involved to make sure the positional advantage isn't illusory - that white can't easily chase the rook away, neutralize the bishops, free his pieces and get the position back under control.

#30 - I'm not sure I buy that breakdown of tactical vs positional. As I've seen it used, tactical normally refers to immediate concrete consequences, positional refers to consequences that I expect to see beyond the horizon of my capability to calculate - "right now" vs "at some point". So in that sense, the tactical consequences of 1. e4 include the specific fact that black can't play 1... d5 without losing the pawn or having to centralize their queen, whereas the more general fact that d5 and f5 are attacked is a positional consequence - if black wants to make use of either of those squares at any point in the future, they're going to have to deal with the threat from my e pawn.

"I very rarely have long term plans. It's all short term thinking mostly... Your opponent is going to prevent your plans anyway, so you have to constantly re-evaluate the situation. That's one of the things that sets apart the best players... the ability to adjust to new situations all the time. There are unlimited [long term] possibilities but there are an limited amount of patterns... When you see a game in which it seems that one player made a very crude positional/strategical mistake, it's usually a tactical mistake."

- Magnus Carlsen

www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2XMee_-dtk&t=12m53s

@Sarg0n
"Good positional play is based on small tactical details (Jussupow/Dvoretzky)."
"Strategic goals are achieved by tactical means."

These 2 statements are not exactly the same. One could have headless tactics, without goals. just seeing tactical motifs as they appear, without making them also advance the non precisely timed goals.

The first statement seems to say that tactical concerns will let emerge, by their immediate consequences, the positional play or strategic goals (i do seem to blend the 2, but could make distinctions if pushed, not interested now).

While the second is compatible with tpr (I think) comment about the flow direction which you called obsolete (i need to read that post better thought, one post at a time....). that tactical choices serving strategic goals are more efficient, that the goals need to be implemented through the precise chess turn alternance time grind (and could find obstacles there).

I prefer the second statement of that earlier post. but i am a naive player, with a propensity for abstractions that may be premature (not always self-serving, but gets me going).

Honestly I would say just marketing technique haha. every move you play is strategic and positional. I think a better contrast would be between more risky and more safe.

Random example of a positional desirable move enabled by tactical means. Needless to say that in every game there are countless occasions in that fashion.

A win of mine against a FM, played otb in 2019, classical time control. What to do? Black might take over in the long term.

Could you please point to the particular moves you have in mind, unless all moves are examples of your last statement.
I am a beginner, and having to study the whole game, to see what you say, may lead me to give up or look at the wrong positions. Just a suggestion for a wider audience to your point, there. If you want, to of course.

I meant 16.c5!

If I may...

In #36 the positional battle is over the center. In particular, White wants to capture the e5-pawn. 16.c5! threatens a few things that Black has to deal with. Black's a5-Knight is trapped and White threatens b4. If Black captures with the pawn, then we have the tactic "removing the guard", and White captures the e5-pawn with his Knight. If Black captures with the Rook, then we have the pin tactic b4. If Black tries 16...b5, then 17.c6, and White has a protected passed pawn, while Black's Knight still is stuck on a5.
After 16...dxc5 17.Nxe5, White is threatening another tactic, a discovered attack on the e7-Bishop, which is unprotected.
Meanwhile, positionally, White has a protected d-pawn and control of the center. Black's queenside majority in that position does not compensate.

@jomega I think the point Sarg0n was trying to make is that he has seen this pawn break pattern before and when the opportunity presented itself he calculated if it is playable. He didn’t go to general abstract ideas to find a concrete move