But in practice they are not.
Blue Devil showed in a nice game 3 times what the greatest problem is with positional play (sorry Blue). He created an outpost that he could not maintain, he preserved the bishoppair in a position where it is worthless and he created a passer he could not maintain.
While I'm doing the third strategical module of PCT, I realized that I must choose between different theoretical advantageous positions all the time. Making the same mistakes as Blue. Time and again the little yet concrete advantage supersedes the vague theoretical advantage that maybe in the future sometimes will yield fruit.
The choice between the beautiful outpost for the knight on f5 in the neighbourhood of the enemy king but without the help of other pieces and the much less beautifull outpost on c4 where the knight does something less spectacular e.g. fixating a weak pawn at a6.
Or on another note, I must create an ugly backward pawn while preventing an enemy bishop to beam as a laser in my position right now. While I'm writing this, I realize it is the choice between what is now and what is maybe in the future. The little advantage now supersedes the big advantage in the future, since the future tends to be very uncertain in chess. The ugly backward pawn can maybe in the future cause an unfavourable endgame, but that beaming bishop is now threatening my position.
I have to get used to this way of looking at things. Pragmatism rules!