Can someone Explain the Difference between positonal Play and Tactical Play?

I understand that overall tactical is about attacking sacrificing and trying to open the game and that positional play is about controlling squares and limiting your opponent's ability to make good moves, but in a game, you do both of those?? you develop attacks you cut off their pieces so how is a game either positional or tactical?? arent only single moves positional or tactical? this is where I don't understand how a player can be tactical or positional when they must do both in every single game they play.

I like to think of tactical play as answering the "how" questions. How do I attack? How do I gain material? How do I defend? It's the means you take to achieve some goals in the game. On the other hand, positional play is answering the "what" questions. What strengths do I have that I can utilize (open file, outpost, active pieces, etc)? What weaknesses does my opponent have (doubled pawns, IQP, cramped spaced, exposed king, etc)?

Obviously, you need to answer both the "how" and "what" questions in a game (you can also achieve the same goal asking two different questions: "how do I defend tactically" vs "what fortress setup can I make to defend myself"), but sometimes one type of questions exists more often in games and is more challenging to answer than the other (ex: closed games require you to identify the "what" more often than "how" because you have all the time you need to move your pieces before the position opens up, so the "how" is not as hard to answer. However, there are not many targets unless you induce some weaknesses or identify pawn breaks, which are all "what" questions), that's when you call a game positional or tactical. 

Sure, any good games of chess that lasts 40+ moves is going to involve trying to make pieces mobile / restrict the opponent as well as tactics that win material or give checkmate.

Off the top of my head, I'd say if the tactics that win material or give checkmate are easy to see but even if you see them you can't prevent the loss, then the game is positional. If the tactics are hard to see, but if the defending player does see them they're able to mitigate (or eliminate) the damage, then that's a tactical game.

Positional play is long term, and based on static features like pawn structure, material, and king safety. Tactical play is short term and based on dynamic features like piece activity in an area and tempo.

Someone can correct me... but I view it as tactics vs strategy (not tactics vs position).

Tactics is typically viewed as short term actions/moves that you can make for an immediate advantage (typically material or forced mate... I assume it could be a positional advantage too).

Strategy is the longer term planning planning of a game.  Positional chess is one of those strategies (there are others).  Tal was notorious for sacrificing pieces in favour of position.

One of the books I like is Jeremy Stillman's Reassess Your Chess.  in it, he discusses planning with imbalances and gives many suggestions to guide your strategy.

@1
"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do.
Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do." - Tartakower

Tactics is short term, strategy is long term.

Examples of tactical play:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139685
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375 

Examples of positional play:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066898 

This is wrong for a number of reasons.  First, positional play is not just about manoeuvring to get a better pawn formation or more pieces than your opponent. It is also about using those pieces to control key squares and create a strong position from which to launch an attack.  Second, "better" does not necessarily mean more lines of communication between the pieces, or more squares controlled. It can also mean a more solid position, with fewer potential weak points.  Third, 1.e4 may actually be the best move from a positional standpoint, as it gives white a strong center and allows for more flexible pawn placement around the king.  Fourth, positional play is not just about building a better position than your opponent. It is also about making the most of your position, and using it to put your opponent under pressure.

I hate giving up a beautiful position that I built up but the game must go on.

Positional play is about controlling squares.

Tactical play is about winning or keeping material.

Putting your knight in the center is good positionally because it controls squares, but bad tactically if a pawn can take the night.

Chess.com blog May 22, 2020 by FatherSmurf "Positional vs Tactical Play- which to choose" provides good explanation 

     Positional play is creating features in the position that are good for you and/or bad for your opponent: controlling open files, getting a strong central/advanced square for a knight, gaining more space, pressuring a backward pawn or overworked piece, weakening the king's defence, having better prospects should the endgame be reached, etc. 

     Tactics are the specific moves used to achieve/exploit such advantages. As great accuracy is needed in tactical play, it is the area in which the majority of games are decided.

Tactics puzzles winning a piece are exciting, but most of the time such positions do not exist. There are no pieces to grab. If you keep looking, you won't know what to do. Positional chess is controlling squares or having the right imbalances for the position. Getting a good knight outpost does not mean you see a win, but it often makes it easier for you and harder for your opponent.

It is like throwing punches. You can't hit as hard when your back is to the wall or floor. 

Yes, every game features both. As GM Bobby Fischer said in My 60 Memorable Games, "Tactics flow from a superior position." 

When people say a game, or player, is "tactical" or "positional" they mean the overall feel of the play or which route is chosen when both options give similar evaluations. This "feel" is subjective to the observer level of understanding, their own interpretation of the chess position(s) and other personal factors.

When someone is called a positional player, it often means they use their pawns as ambassadors, often in a closed game.

When someone is called a tactical player, if often means they have lots of pieces pointed at other pieces, with lots of trades possible, and often pins and checks possible. We call this a sharp line since a mistake can quickly lose a piece. 

A complex position is one where the moves you make matter a lot, meaning you can't just do 3 in whatever order you want. Acknowledging that a position is complex suggests you understand it.

At every move, you should be thinking about both. However, in sharp positions, the chance to win a piece or mate or avoid mate is worth more than having your pieces centralized.

In a closed position, it often seems tactics to win a piece are unlikely, and so people spend less time looking for combinations there. 

So to you a certain position will lead to more positional or more tactical moves but not playstyles?

Good Positional Chess, Planning & Strategy Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-positional-chess-planning-strategy

This is an incredibly ignorant statement. First of all, chess is a game of logic and reasoning, not memorization. If you cannot see the logical consequences of a move, then you are at a severe disadvantage. Second, chess is also a game of planning and foresight. If you cannot see the potential consequences of a move several turns in advance, then you will also be at a severe disadvantage. Finally, chess is a game of visualization. If you cannot see the board in your mind's eye, then you will be at a severe disadvantage. In short, chess is a game that requires a great deal of mental ability and facility. It is not a game that can be learned "quickly" by anyone, let alone someone who does not know how to read.

     "Incidentally, building a better position doesn't just stop when you think you managed it. It means continuing to do so, although you'll always be looking for ways to capitalise. Perhaps you're one of those people who loves to argue with everyone. Well, I am too."

You are correct that building a better position does not stop when you think you have managed it. However, you are wrong to say that it means continuing to do so. Instead, it means looking for ways to improve your position even further. And, yes, I love to argue with people. But I only do so when it is appropriate and this is not one of those times.