Can a Tactical Mind destroy a Strategic Mind?

Take two chess players...who have no rating.

Ignore their gender/age/location/coaches/computer programs/books...even ignore natural ability etc etc.

I won't allow you any room for "if" "and" or "but" it is simply a choice between "player 1" or "player 2"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Player 1-Knows all opening theory, knows all endgame methods and knows middle game concepts(Rooks behind pawns, Knights in the center, Rook on the 7th, Proper exchanges, Initiative, Advantage etc etc)

Player 1 Has never played a game of Chess.

Player 1 Knows what Chess "Methods" are...

Player 1 Spends his time at "Chess Mentor"

Player 1 Opens his first game as white with 1.e4 or 1.d4 and says "Welcome to theory"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Player 2 Has never played "Chess"

Player 2 Solves "Tactical" positions constantly.

Player 2 Can always be seen with a Tactics book and a Chess set.

Player 2 Thinks "Chess" is Tactical problems.

Player 2 Spends his time at "Tactics Trainer"

Player 2 Opens  his first game as white with 1.g4 and says "Bring it"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who wins?

A Strategic Mind?

or

A Tactical Mind?

A strategical plan can be ruined by a simple tactical mistake, so the tactical player would win.

In reality, a mix of both will usually be best though.

I would go with player 1, by far.  The fundamentals are, well, fundamental!

Problem is anyone who knows chess "from beginning to end" is going to be tactical as well as strategic. In a sense, what you're asking who would win between a GM and someone who never played before (but is easily adaptable)...i'll have to side with the GM

No I asked who would win between to unrated players.

One knowing Strategy and the other knowing Tactics.

Aren't strategy and tactics really the same thing? I.e. if you have a particular strategy to approach your match then that is also your tactic - they're tautological. I may be wrong.

BTW I would go with player one, the greater foundational knowledge should see him/her through. Also if player one is an expert at opening theory he/she wont be fazed by things like 1.g4. the same goes for middle game, end game and exchange play - player one should always be able to cope.

If only I was good at tactics...  

This is a question that is very dear to me, as I have often pondered it myself -  most notably, when the members of Chess.com engaged "Cheater_1", who claimed to be "unmateable".  I really believed that someone from our community would have a brilliant but obscure strategy that would defeat Cheater_1 right out of the starting gate.

Alas, this was not so.  But I don't want to debate the outcome of that game, I just wanted to highlight the difference between the tactical player and the strategic one.

At some definite level of play, the strategic player ought to be able to outshine the tactical player.  But the problem, as I see it, is that no one (not even the most sophisticated Chess engine) plays perfect Chess (at least, not yet).  And both players, the strategic and the tactical, will make "mistakes" in play.  What is a mistake in one situation, and isn't in another, relies on the ability of the player to take advantage of inaccurate play by their opponent.

Everyone, regardless of playing strength, will sometimes choose a move that is inferior, even though there is nothing "wrong" with the move.  So, because of this, I think that if someone can correctly formulate what they need to do in order to win strategically, then they ought to be able to win every game, despite perfect tactical play by their opponent.  It is this very reason that some openings are favored over others ("Best by Test", "White to Move and Win", etc.).  100's of years of theory have shown that there are primary objectives that need to be accomplished on your way to the endgame.  And a mastery of these objectives will always ensure that the tactical player can be "up a piece" and still lose the game.

I can't believe someone mentioned that scumbag "cheater_1" in my thread.

Why would anyone mention a loser who cheated at chess?

I will now engage in punching the wall to relieve my anger.

Niven42 you have been warned.

No, strategy is like theory, the ideas behind why certain concepts work. For instance, putting your bishop on the same colored squares as your pawns in the endgame is strategy. Keeping the bishop pair over a knight and bishop is theory, or strategy. Castling to protect the king - strategy.

Tactics, on the other hand, are more ephemeral. Having good tactics would be akin to seeing a mate 9 plies deep. Breaking down the king or queenside to attack the opponent's king for interesting mating combinations, or distracting the opponent to win material advantage - these are tactics.

As for the original question, the tactical player would win. The strategic player has a good basis for tactics, but knows only concepts behind chess and has no real goal. The tactical player, on the other hand, has much more tangible goals, and could press a win or an advantage that the strategic player would be ignorant and powerless to stop.

Pardon me for asking, but who is "cheater_1?"  It seems like there's a whole story behind him...

The whole reason for strategy's existence is to bring about tactics. Having a good pawn structure or a centralized queen doesn't "win" the game, but it sets up the board for a win, whether wildly tactical or very simply so.

Tactics win because strategy never wins a game, tactics do. When the two concepts are mutually exclusive, anyway. If one player one was strategically strong and tactically weak, and the other player was vice versa, I would place my bet on the first player. The second player's position would crumble and he'd have no tactical resources, while the first player would eventually notice some winning line, after having a winning position longer than he necessary.

Exactly "mosqutip"

 Great explanation!  This is indeed true!

 This "cheater_1" was troll, right during the low point of the forums some random guy pops in and declares himself UNMATEABLE an that he's designing the ULTIMATE chess program to NEVER lose. A month or so in, MOST of chess.com recognized this guy as the MORON who randomly CAPITALIZES empasized words. As a joke, he CHALLENGED the lot of chess.com to a VOTE chess game. To his SURPRISE, erik TOOK his bet. Rybka, Chessmaster, and other POWERFUL engines took on Cheater's CANNIBAL37. It was pretty much EVEN, until he lost on TIME. Chess.com MOCKED him for his FAILURE to defeat them. He asked for a REMATCH, and even went as far as to call a 7 GAME tourney vs HIS engine. erik DECLINED his offers. He then PERSONALLY took up rebuilding the FORUMS, which, admittedly, needed his help. He slowly faded away after that 

So... yeah, he has a lot of history.

His leaving thread

Thanks for the explanation. I don't want to disagree with you for the sake of it but I'm wondering if everything in your first paragraph is a tactic also? It sounds to me like you would have to have a long range goal in mind to achieve, for instance, placing your bishop on the right square thus making it a tactic.

But I see what you are trying to say (I think) strategies are concrete things that you may have when going into a match and tactics are harder to pin down and may be changeable with the variations at the board?

Also I still think player 1 wins, if he has the attributes that the OP has given him. An expert on every facet of chess will have a 'real goal' I assure you. He will also be prepared for any eventuality at the board. In fact, by definition, he must have all the skills of player 2 because of his expertise in 'initiative, advantage, exchange' etc etc - those are tactical surely? i.e. varied at the board.

I'm trying to understand your point. You start by saying that tactics win because strategy never wins and then you say that you would pick a strategically strong but tactically weak player to win over the reverse. Are you saying that in fact strategy is more important as a weapon to first get a player into a position where tactics can even be brought into play? If you are then I agree completely. I think player 2 in this example would struggle to get into the middle game with a lack of opening knowledge.