I have this notion that tactics could be categorized. 

I recently posted two forums regarding the Fork tactic.  I was requesting a way of being able to all the time forewarn oneself of the calamity.  In one game, I was doing well until (a quick or blitz) I overlooked a fork, and in another I showed how I forked my opponent twice.  The Fork to me seems surely to be one category - one tactic one needs to have in mind at every move.  Another tactic I think would be the Pin, etc. 

(Maybe my inquiry is quite obvious...any Chess book teaching tactical play will be set up in chapters - every chapter of a good book perhaps will be one of those categories.  As a whole the book would have categorized all the tactics.   I am not so well read in Chess, so if anyone could mention the book and put down in this forum the table of contents, please...)

Understandably, not every game and move one would need to check for all the tactics (either defensively or offensively), but in a general sense one could always be aware of them.  During the endgame for instance, one might not have to worry about the pin, ok, so then he would know which categorical tactics to focus more of his intention. 

It seems quite natural for one to think, "Tactics, numbering them, oh, there are so many." I am talking here about not numbering them, there would be so many...but categorizing.  For example there are many variations of the Fork: using the knight, bishop, rook, or queen, or even King or pawn - and ways within each piece to do it - each variation could have its name...But they would all fall into one category (or chapter), "The Fork."

This is somewhat a technological innovation.  One's opponent may or may not be aware of the (pehaps, let's say, 10) categories.  If he isn't, then surely I think an advantage here is gained; if he is, then the advantage could be with one's ability to use this system here we are talking about.  Having better and more efficient ways of thinking in order to have more "intelligence" than your "enemy".

I think one subject worthy of comparing is the subject of Anatomy.    There are so many - millions upon millions - parts of the human body, but a good book categorizes everything in order to teach it.  Yes, there are different ways of categorizing, and the more ways one has to categorize makes retrieval of information more efficient (like in a computer).  It is one of the methods of pedagogy.  This applies to all fields of knowledge - so I am only assuming that this would work in Chess as well.  I am talking here of taxonomy.  Like in Biology...Bloom's taxonomy in education...and somemany more (I'm sure there are those here who could think of more examples when taxonomy is used.)

Perhaps for starters this would be one way of categorizing the tactics of Chess:

1. Fork
2. Pin
3. Castle (including preventing temporarily or permanently etc.)
4. Rooks open file domination
5. Bishops diagnol control
6. Knight tactics (this I know the least about)
7. Pawn promotion (including advance, chaining, separation etc.)
   
8. Center control
9. Development
10. Tempo

I don't know...this was only an example off the top of my head...I'm sure others here who know much more about Chess than me could be of great assistance.

Thank you.  Comments are extremly appreciated, solicited, and the reason de etre of this post.

Gary Mossu

Um, most of the things you listed are not tactics.

And you forgot skewers, X-rays, discovered attacks, double attacks, deflections, decoys, trapping pieces...

Thank you very much!

What is ...?

What is not a tactic?

Does everybody agree with you?

by ... I meant that there may be others. Like zugzwangs for example.

And I don't really know if others will agree or not. I know Susan Polgar does, as I got those examples from the chapter title to her book, Chess Tactics for Champions.

I'm sure others will be along to weigh in shorty.

Oh, and I'm not trying to be a richard here, if it comes of that way. 

Attraction
Back Rank Mate
Blocking
Capturing Defender
Clearance
Discovered Attack
Distraction
Double Attack
Exposed King
Fork
Hanging Piece
Interference
Overloading
Pin
Sacrifice
Simplification
Skewer
Smother
Trapped Piece
Weak Back Rank
X-Ray Attack
Zugzwang

Ok, heres a basic idea of tactics. Tactics are a way of gaining material, or checkmating your opponent. (I expect that in higher levels tactics could be used to get better positions? I am unsure.)

However, some of the things you listed come under Strategical rather than Tactical. Here are the things you listed:

Fork - Tactical

Pin - Tactical

Castle - Strategical

Rooks open file domination - Strategical

Bishops diagnol control - Strategical

Knight tactics- Same as forks, also discovered attacks

Pawn promotion - Not really either, just a move- underpromotion is a tactic

Center control- Strategical

Development- Strategical

Tempo- Strategical

As you can see, almost all the things you posted are not tactics. Most of the tactics have been posted earlier by rookandladder-

forks, pins, skewers, X-rays, discovered attacks, double attacks, deflections, decoys, trapping pieces (debatable), zugzwang, stalemate.

Could any of these be categorized together in order to simplify?

Would there be more of these along the same "taxonic level" (what's the word I'm looking for?)?

1)  What is the difference between a stategy and a tactic?

2)  Does everybody agree with that stated difference?

Most importantly:

3)  What strategical or tactical THINGS are you talking about?  Tactics?

What is the definition and difference of the term tactic and stategy?

The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a tactic as:

Etymology: New Latin tactica, from Greek taktikē, from feminine of taktikos

Date (first known occurence introduced into the English language): 1640

1 : a device for accomplishing an end

2 : a method of employing forces in combat

And strategy as:

Etymology: Greek stratēgia generalship, from stratēgos

Date: 1810

1 a

    (1): the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war

    (2): the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions

   b: a variety of or instance of the use of strategy

2

a: a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem

   b: the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal

3:

an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success <foraging strategies of insects>

From this I am a bit unclear:

Perhaps the term tactic applies to the specific ways of applying a general strategy.

Ok. In chess, tactics are usually forced wins of material. Strategy, on the other hand, is playing to improve the positions of your pieces, so they are more effective (e.g. open files). One usually flows into the other, as if you play well strategically, tactics just seem to jump out for you!

This is how all Chess writer's use that terminology?

Aren't they equivalently important?

According to what you are saying they are both tactics - one I would say would be a positional tactic and one material.  Not one strategical and the other tactical.  Where does that terminology come from - the earliest Chess writers?  Ruy Lopez?  Damiano?

Threats and interference (interposition) come to mind as well.  What about luft, triangulation, opposition, waiting moves/zugzwang and zwischenzug? 

It is the language all chess-players use. Tactics force the win of material, or force the win. Strategy is all about the positioning of your pieces so that they are stronger.

Also pawn storms, pawn breaks and sacrifices (not real sacrifices, but tactical ones that have a clear benefit such as destroying king-cover or generally enabling another more lucrative tactic).

You my friend need to read some basic books on chess.  Your confusion surrounding tactical versus positional chess and the distinction between a tactic and a strategy are very fundamental concepts that are tought in countless books.  A couple such examples would be to pick up the books by Seirawan titled "Winning Chess Tactics" and "Winning Chess Strategies".  Read them both cover to cover.  Once you have finished this and now understand tactics versus strategies, move onto some good positional books by Silman such as Reassess your Chess or The Ameteur's Mind.  You will then have an understanding of the distinction between a tactical player and a positional player.

So this IS my question:

I think dozens of tactical/strategical tactics (or strategies - whatever you want to call them) have been mentioned here.  Is there a way to categorize them?  I am sure there is (unless I am sorely mistaken - and then I will have also indeed learned a novelty - that Chess is an exception).  Why should Chess be different (in this regard) than any other subject?   Could one create a categorical system if no one else has already (which I would be quite surprised!)?  Why or why not?

Thank you again for your feedback friends.

How about we add:

Zwischenzug

7th rank invasion

Desperado

Otherwise, TwistedLogic's list is pretty comprehensive.

Ok.  Thank you wiseachoo.

I'm not sure how you mean, Garymossu. Perhaps you mean the sections such as Double Attacks (e.g. forks, skewers) and Endgame (e.g. opposition, zugzwang) and then Drawing (e.g. perpetual check). In which case, yes they can be categorised and have been before.