What does "positional" mean, versus "tactical"?

I was reading another thread about the English and someone commented that the openning indicates that the game will be very "positional" in nature, rather than "tactical". Im still very much a beginner, so forgive the dumb question, but what do these to terms means in the context on describing the overall nature of a game?

Are there any of "types" of games besides these two?

Tactical games are often open games. This means there are lots of open files and diagonals, and pawns aren't going to be locked up. Tactical games leave an opportunity for lots of tactics. Knights are general worse than bishops in these games because knights are short range pieces.

Positional games are often closed games. This means there are few open files and diagonals if any, and pawns may be locked up. Positional games allow for few tactics, and are positions where you will want to make quieter moves to subtly improve your position. Bishops are generally worse than knights in these positions because they can be stuck behind pawn chains or be blocked by other pieces.

Regarding your positional diagram... I don't think in a normal game, the bishops (both of them) would end up on those squares.

Here is my best shot at describing this:

Position - The placement of pieces on the chessboard void of permutation.  This is a static look at a chess board and the features that can be described as positive or negative for one side or the other.  When a person describes a game this way, he or she may be talking about a game with less calculation (if I do this - then he will do that - and I will do this) and more strategic thought based on the position of the pawns and pieces.

Tactical - The relationships formed between pieces with specific reference to their dynamic possibilities.  Tactical patterns are often referenced as common relationships between certain sets of pieces.  When a person refers to a game as tactical they might mean a calculation heavy game where the dynamic relationship between the pieces is extremely important.

Some people confuse "tactical" and "positional" with "open" and "closed" games.  It is very possible to have an open game that has to be approached with a positional mindset or a closed game that has a tactical dynamic to it.  Even though the terms are not easily interchangeable, they tend to be abused that way often enough...

Positional players generally prefer, slower and more tense games. They usually produce very complicated positions and calculate many moves in advance. Once a small advantage is seen, it is never let go of. Players like this include Stienitz, Nimzovich, Lasker, Petrosian, Botvinnik, Smyslov, Spassky, Karpov, and Carlsen.

Tactical players tend to prefer aggressive, open positions with exchanges, sacrifices, and a lot of fireworks. Many of the best players of all time have had extraordinary tactical vision, such as Alekhine, The Magician from Rega (Tal) and Kasparov. 

The above is mainly from my experience. Some may disagree, but just putting in my 2 cents worth ;)

I've heard it compared to war once. You use strategy to find good ways to move against the opponent, look for weaknesses in their strategy and find ways to exploit them.

Tactics is the actual fighting that typically succeeds due to sound strategy.

Without strategy you end up wasting time and attacking things that shouldn't be attacked and potentially weaken your side.

Without tactics your side is completely unthreatening. Strategy, no matter how intricate means nothing if you can't capitalize on it. 

I think the confusion and frustration at class level comes from the fact that tactics are simply more dangerous against opponents with bad strategy and worse tactical ability. You can even look at it like "the puncher's chance" which simply means that the guy throwing punches always has a chance.

Lots of books will tell you that tactics and strategy are equally important but in reality without tactics you can't attack or defend yourself. So for improving players tactics is going to be the most important thing for some time. As you improve strategy then starts to gain importance and soon becomes just as important as tactics.

I couldn't disagree more. When playing a positional game, there's nearly no calculation to it; In a positional game you analyze the placement of the pieces, the statics of the position, the structure of the pawns etc, and then evaluate it all together as to formulate a plan e.g. Manuever a poorly placed piece to an optimum square, take advantage of a hole in your opponents position, etc. There's really no calculation to it because if you calculate non-stop you're still likely to get nowhere because your opponent can reply almost anything, contrary to a tactical position where there are captures and sacrifices and many moves end up being forced. 

           Here's the war analogy;   positional means you have the high ground. But tactical means they have more bullits than you.

Positional is the squeeze of the boa constrictor. Tactics are the bite of the viper.

That's a good way to put it.

Broadly speaking, positional chess is about improving the function of your side, while tactics are about exploiting the disfunction of the other side.  Hope this helps.

"Positional" means skilled at evaluating a position. "Tactical" means skilled at evaluating a tactic. Tactics are transitions between positions and positions are starting and ending points of tactics.

TL;DR: sport yourself as whichever of those you'd feel like or consider more meritable.