Chess, 99% Tactics, or a Game of Strategy?

Strategy and tactics are often confused.

Even definitions in online dictionaries are disjointed. For example, look at what Cambridge has to say in its two definitions of tactics (I put in bold words that, in my view, were contradicting),

a) a specific action intended to get a particular result

b) Tactics is the science of planning the arrangement and use of military forces and equipment in war.

.

Now Oxford ,

Tactic, an action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

.

Even the French description (Larousse.fr) is fuzzy,

Tactique. Art de diriger une bataille, en combinant par la manœuvre l'action des différents moyens de combat et les effets des armes.

.

Not only definitions, but also the importance and role of the two across domains is unclear. Chess including.

There are two main "schools of thought." Ever since Teichmann's "Chess is 99% tactics," even Grandmasters have been divided on the issue. For GM Julio Becerra, it is 99% tactics too, while GM Reuben Fine reduced it by a few points, "tactics is still more than 90% of chess."

On the other hand, for Kasparov "the game of chess is game of strategy; of course, you have many opportunities to show your tactical skills, but foremost, it’s about strategy." (in Politico.com, where else?)

To see what is older, I have recently run a poll with the following results (not a huge sample though),

.

What's your thoughts on this?

What is older? What is actually the interplay of strategy and tactics?