19600 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 is the difference between tactics and strategy? i confuse the two of these.Aren't they the same thing?
"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
i.e. Tactics are ways of getting an immediate advantage with a few moves. Strategy is more subtle and long-range.
Tactics is about combinations possible in the actual position and is usually limited to a few moves.
Strategy is about long term concepts e.g. to attack on the king-side or to simplify into a winning endgame.
LOL Ivan - Great quote !
Tartakower put it into a nut-scale.
Strategy is the establishment of a battle plan. Tactics are used in the implementation.
You need strategy to set up the tactics. Strategy is also called "positional play".
Chess openings...which are usually deemphasized ("oh...don't worry about openings until you get much better...focus on tactics" -- that's the rave of the day)...are an example of strategic planning, so that you can "set up" for mid game tactics.
thank you! :)
He's my favorite if only for his witticisms.
I always found Euwe's definition helpful. Tactics is seeing, Strategy is thinking.
Good quote and nice short answer.
You are welcome.
Also, I corrected a typo: "...focus on strategy"; I meant to say "...focus on tactics".
I believe you need both. But, I wouldn't argue that using the tactics trainer here will give you a quick boost. The strategy stuff is slower, more tedious to learn. And, I'm not complaining...just saying. I work on both.
To me, strategy involves long term general plans based on pawn structure, weak pawns, control of space, and king position. Like asking yourself, do I emphasize my Knights or bishops in this game? Or like if i see my opponent has the bishop pair and I'm with a knight and bishop, i'll try to create a pawn structure unfavorable for bishop use.
tactics is the "pick-up line": strategy is what happens after.
Presumably if we were all good enough, there would be no distinction between them.
Using your analogy, what happens after would be the endgame. ;) The pickup is tactics, setting it up is strategy.
Tactics is about moves, Strategy - about ideas.
I really like this definition, somebody used it in one of threads here some time ago.
But with me, moves are ideas.
Another thought about strategy and tactics...
Studying tactics gives instantaneous gratification. You do a puzzle and, wheter you get it right or wrong, this is followed up with the exact perfect answer. If you got it right...you gloat. If you got it wrong...you smack yourself on the forehead and vow to remember this "trick".
Strategy...chess mentor is a good example. You shuffle pieces around , often with a vagueness to set up a workable tactic...all the while hoping that your opponent will soon make a blunder so that you can pounce upon it.
Something like that.
So basically if a player comes to know of as a tactical player after being called a strategic one, he has actually degraded in his skills?
Well, that's what the positional snobs would have you believe anyway... Since I'm steadfastly tactical, I'd rather not going along with that.
If you can describe what you are trying to do using concrete specific moves "I'll play Nb4 then he has to move Qc7, and then Nd5 forking the Qc7 and Be7." Then it's tactics.
If you have to use mostly words without specific moves "I need to put my one of my rooks on the open file, then manouver my knight to the d5 square somehow so I can make use of that outpost and then maybe I can start looking for forking opportunities." Then it's strategy.
They aren't diametrically opposite things. They work together. You can start out looking at the board and noticing that you have a good outpost on d5 that you want to put your knight on, adn then you might find the tactical continuation that forces that outcome. While looking at that tactical continuation, you might realize that you have an opportunity to force a trade of knights that gives you an a greater advantage than that offered by the outpost, and you might then change your strategical idea after that observation.
ღ OFFICIAL 2014 Chess.com Awards ღ
by Joseph-S 2 minutes ago
The Latest Banning... MERSAPHE. What now?
by thecentipede 3 minutes ago
I miss AndyClifton
by siekensat 3 minutes ago
can i change my username back??
by besttrollhere 3 minutes ago
do Americans really see Bobby as one of the greatest players
by batgirl 6 minutes ago
Opening with 1.Nf3 and Bogo's Weapons
by Senchean 6 minutes ago
Caro-Kann - Advance Variation (3...c5) question
by Apotek 7 minutes ago
12/28/2014 - Opposite Squares Attack
by Mrskaras 8 minutes ago
Millionaire Chess 2!!
by RTH794 11 minutes ago
by Sqod 12 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!