10624 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
What exactly is ment by stategy. If I have a plan, is that stategy?
Isn't strategy the over-all plan and tactics the maneuvering of pieces to achieve that plan? For example, the strategy of White playing against some defenses as the Sicilian might be to keep Black bottled-up and allow White to develop better.
"Strategy" is a nebulous term and the more you learn about it the harder it seems to be to define (at least for me).
An "over-all plan" can be strategic, and that's certainly part of strategy. But a plan can also be a forcing tactical sequence that results in an advantage, and in that case it's not strategy it's tactics.
I like Paul's definition and have used it myself: if you need words to describe what you're doing, it's strategy, else it's tactics. But that doesn't do much in terms of saying what strategy in and of itself.
I think another way of looking at it is that strategy is the statistical trends of centuries of play distilled into an idea on a chess board without a concrete purpose. We put rooks on open files when there's no tactical sequence to pursue, for example, because over the centuries it has become clear that rooks have a strong statistical tendency to be useful on open files eventually. So in lieu of something better, putting a rook on an open file is statistically likely to be a good move. By contrast, if there's a concrete reason for the rook to be on an open file such as a forced sequence of moves that leads to getting doubled rooks on the 7th, then it can't really be said to be a purely strategic move. And here we see the problem that lies at the heart of trying to define strategy, very often a move may be made for strategic reasons but end up serving an immediate tactical end. Consider if you don't notice the forcing sequence leading to the doubled rooks on the 7th until the move after you placed the rook on the open file because you didn't know what else to do? When you annotate the game where do you say the forcing tactical sequence started, since the rook to the open file is part of the tactical sequence you can't say it starts the next move. By the same token, it's disingenuous to say you played the move with the tactic in mind.
Well put, fellow Minnesotan (Kingpatzer). Any other examples besides rooks on open files?
The tactician must know what to do whenever something needs doing;the strategist must know what to do when nothing needs doing. - Savielly Tartakower
Farting as a tactic?
by briansladovich 3 minutes ago
How can I get RonaldJosephCote back?
by JamieDelarosa 8 minutes ago
'Chess Tactics for Beginners' vs 'Elementary Chess Combinations'
by rcmag 11 minutes ago
Another one bites the dust.
by JamieDelarosa 13 minutes ago
If time travel was possible
by doppelgangsterII 20 minutes ago
Fundamental chess patterns (50 or 100 or 300 or 500 etc.)
by rcmag 22 minutes ago
12/17/2014 - Lose To Gain
by gergelyla 28 minutes ago
Three easy problems
by Remellion 54 minutes ago
ღ OFFICIAL 2014 Chess.com Awards ღ
by Syd_Arthur 62 minutes ago
Establishing the value of a chess piece
by solskytz 63 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!