I read where somebody said that tactics are what you do when there's something to do, and strategy is what you do when there's nothing to do.
Then I guess most of my life has been strategy.
You have a high rating Andy. Do you use strategy in your life or mainly react?
At a point in the game you gage you are either winning or loosing. thismeans that your strategy is superior, either positionsally or piece superiority.
When it is positionally you can see strategy rather than tactics IMO, although startegy can be a group of tactics you are ghoping to employ.
there are general aims, like pawn push, or major piece fous on the king, or knocking off pieces wher your enemy is a piece down.
"How do you move from strategy to tactics?"
By, after having made a series of moves with strategic aim, you initiate a manuver with a tactical goal as its rationale. That's "how".
The question as worded implies that the asker knows what is strategy and what is tactics, but somehow also seems to indicate that he is not quite sure. If the asker does know what is strategy and what are tactics, then it could be that what he is actually wishing to ask is --
" 'When' do you move from strategy to tactics?"
A possible answer to this question might be -- When after having made a series of moves of strategic aim, one sees an opportunity to create for himself a more sudden and larger advantage over his opponent than is available by merely continuing to make strategic moves.
If by initiating a manuver (consistent with his previous strategy or not), which will enhance and/or increase, relative to his opponent, amount(s) of the power elements of chess (material, position, time) which he posesses, and the player forsees that the resultant board position after the contemplated tactical move is truly beneficial to his game, then that is 'when' to move from strategy to tactics.
Or more simply put, whenever you see some good tactics.
However, the question remains, does the asker know what is strategy and what is tactics?
OOPS! I thought the post was FROM strategy TO tactics. Nevermind...
Thanks for your most intelligent reply. I see you are a student of von Clauswitz?
Any decisiobn is frought with difficulties as you dont know your enemy's strategy as all warfare is based on decption.
A good strategiest ideally doesn't revel his strategy until he checkmates you1
Often great players descend from the heravens and even after the end you still hardly believe it's happened.
I wonder about seizing an opportunity by implementing tactics as you suggest.
Napoleon's life was spared because the cossack abandoned an attack on him and went instaed for a wealth-laden baggage train.
Capturingh piece after peice is a waste of effort as the king is the sole issue, and a war of attrition is a lack of genius IMO.
Unless you play an aimless game the cleverness of your enemy has to be guessed. His every move, sequence of moves and predicted moves have to be looked @ in terms of tactics and also of strategy.
The number of tricks in chess is so vast that unless you master them to grandmaster level as a young teen ager you cant compete on a world stage. Howeveer I do know people who have dramatically risen their game when by IQ tresting critera it shouldn't be possible.
Doesn't matter (nobody's really listening anyway).
What are you talking about Clifton....have you been at the headmaster's gin again?
You have a strange genius Clifton, but your chess games are instructive. The mind boggles when it tries to fathom your strategy
Another strange genius:
Nash doesn't work alone.
My mind too boggles when it tries to fathom the strategy in my last game...
Its worse playing blindfold. What happened?
The seeing eye dog made the wrong move.
An old woman stands in the market with a "Chernobyl mushrooms for sale" sign. A man goes up to her and asks, "Hey, what are you doing? Who's going to buy Chernobyl mushrooms?" And she tells him, "Why, lots of people. Dont you have plans to rise in the party?"
is there are simple list of principles ?
If you are looking for a body of hierarchical terminology organized from the general to the specific in chess theory in order to get the big picture, the best place to start is with the pawns. The main reason to begin with the pawns is that they are the only ones that cannot move backwards. In other words, to wrap your brain around it all, there are models of chess theory and there are concepts and ideas in the organization of that theory that guide you from the very general principles to the very specific details of strategy and tactics in variations of specific openings, middle games, and endgames.
There is an overriding principle in chess:
Winning chess is the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.
There are two basic theories of chess:
1. Classical Theory: Occupy the center with pawns and pieces in order to control it.
2. Hypermodern Theory: Control the center with the power of the pawns and pieces. With this method you do not create targets for your opponent to attack.
The title to your post reads as follows: How do you move to strategy from tactics?
A tree analogy serves well here to answer part of your question. Think of tactics as the leaves. The strategies are the branches and limbs. Strategy and tactics are connected. Tactics is a special type of strategy. All tactics are strategies, but not all strategies are tactics. Similarly all ants are insects, but not all insects are ants.
To get a more detailed overview of chess theory you could read the following books or cds:
1."My System", by Aaron Nimzowitch
2."Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch
pawn push was tried by UK V Germany WWI
But Hannibal demonstrated encirclement at Cannae -where you crowd opponents pieces they press on opne another unable to move where a smaller army surrounds them.
It is possibloe to crowd opponent's main pieces...tyhey often have a centre of gravity which you can use pawns to hem in.
It is impossibloe to have a strategy in advance as you dont know what enemy will do.