Difference between Strategy and Positional play?

Positional play is more about the immediate features of the position : weak squares, strong points, space, activity and coordination of the pieces. Strategy is related to general planning, long term thinking, how the position could evolve in the long run.

In his books Dvoretsky made the interesting statement that while Karpov was the great master of positional play, he was comparatively not a deep strategist.

The definition of strategy is much more general than position and positional play. The strategy to trade pieces is an example that's not related to position. A player with a material advantage may be able to win quicker, and more easily by trading pieces, getting down to where the opponent doesn't have enough pieces or pawns to play. Or a player may be able to stop a dangerous attack trading pieces.

This is still no sharp separation.

Weak points, aka strategic play, outposts, aka positional play, is surely related. Aagaard looks at the decisions in his books Strategic Play and Positional Play. Three questions are necessary for positional decisions in his opinion to play good positional moves:
1. Where are the weaknesses?
2. Which is the worst placed piece?
3. What is your opponents idea?
This is not enough to decide strategically. These decision are in Aagaard's view complex in the sense you cannot find the best move by calculation or positional needs. One have to look for longterm gains and losses of an idea and sometimes play a move looking anti-positional.

This makes me think you have to reach master level before being able to judge the difference correctly. For a player in my level positions are complex, where there is a lack of positional knowledge. If you know the basics of Steinitz's theory, most important endings, tactics, calculation technics there are still positions complex enough a non-master will probably only find the right idea by chance.

Strategy is the formation of long-term plans which cannot be securely completed in a matter of only a few turns. We have certain ideas which are common enough that they are considered "strategic advantages," because they will help to achieve most long-term goals. Positional play is the creation of long-term advantages in the board state which cannot be easily undone by moves your opponent makes. For example, a solid pawn structure, or an advanced salient, is a positional advantage.

Strategy and positional play, because they both involve results that are not immediately quantifiable (say, by counting material on the board), often get put into the same category and become difficult to distinguish, particularly because positional play is often an integral part of someone's strategy.

However, it's very conceivable that a person might make moves which give them an obvious positional advantage (such as, for example, getting a very far-advanced and well-supported pawn, or doubling the opponent's pawns, or trading a knight for a bishop in a position where the pawns limit the remaining bishop) without a long-term plan, believing that they will likely have an easy time in the ending. An example of this is Fischer's famous "refutation" of the Dragon Sicilian, "pry open the h-file, sac-sac, mate!" The strategy is almost nonexistent, but he claims that once he's achieved a positional goal (the H-file being open) the game is essentially already won.

Meanwhile, it's entirely possible that someone might play with a complex strategy which ultimately does not rely on positional tricks (though somewhat less likely than the first case).

Strategy of all under 2200 ranked players:

- ok, Silman says I have to trade my bad bishop for his good knight and put my knight on this nice central outpost! Mmmm good! Wow I’m so talented at chess! *one move later opponent eats your rook after you missed a knight fork* WTF!!!!*^#*^*&@!(*@&(^*!(&@

Positional play of every under 2200 player:

- see above.

I’m just saying.

Priorities...

Just the other day I studied Dutch to see how to deal with the annoying e4 advance if white is able to achieve it. In my next game my opponent played as white the following “opening” 1 a4, 2 h4, 3 a5, 4 h5, 5 a6, 6 h6 (all pre-moves), and I suddenly discovered that it’s not safe to castle to either side, and I have weaknesses on long diagonals. I miserably lost the game. Another example of how under 2400 you just gotta do tactics 95% or more of your time.

Another interesting “strategy” I saw my opponents employ is the following: 1 a3, 2 b3, 3 c3, 4 d3 etc. (you get the idea) he literally placed ALL his pawns on the 3rd rank... terrible strategy and zero clue of positional principles, and yet good luck beating him... he was fast and decent at tactics. I went on to get smashed.

Cliffs:
- Don’t worry about such semantics. Solve those puzzles over and over and over.

And over.

By the way, this post is NOT to offend or dismiss anyone or to disagree, I’m just introducing another detail to this discussion which I think is often missed: priorities, and what is more important. I hope no offense is taken by anyone reading this.

"In my next game my opponent played as white the following “opening” 1 a4, 2 h4, 3 a5, 4 h5, 5 a6, 6 h6 (all pre-moves), and I suddenly discovered that it’s not safe to castle to either side, and I have weaknesses on long diagonals. I miserably lost the game. Another example of how under 2400 you just gotta do tactics 95% or more of your time.

Another interesting “strategy” I saw my opponents employ is the following: 1 a3, 2 b3, 3 c3, 4 d3 etc. (you get the idea) he literally placed ALL his pawns on the 3rd rank... terrible strategy and zero clue of positional principles, and yet good luck beating him... he was fast and decent at tactics. I went on to get smashed."

Oh my gosh! These players have no respect for your 2100+ rating!

@Kusokosla

If it's blitz or worse bullet it is useless to think about strategy. No offense intended.