Strategy vs Tactics. Is there a difference indeed?

Sure, we learn one strategic concept initially, and then we learn simple tactics like looking for knight forks and trying for scholar's mate, and at some point, we start learning other strategic concepts while continuing to imporve our tactical abilities.

Tactics and strategy are related, obviously, but two things that are related are not "roughly the same". And anyway, your original statement was that there's no "real difference". As many in this thread have explained, there is a real difference, even if they are related and even if moves often have both strategic and tactical aims. A move can have two purposes, but that doesn't mean that the purposes are the same kind of purpose.

Strategy is more of a plan, Tactics more an action. I find that after about 12 total moves my strategy has gone to crap because of his/her tactics!

Euwe put it this way.  Tactics is seeing, Strategy is thinking.

I'm not a very experienced chess player and a beginner in the game so my explanation might not satisfy everyone. 

Strategies are the plannings to achieve a certain goal, by the means of tactics. 

example? Checkmate, knight fork, breaking into the defensive line of the opponent around the king, etc. 

Let us simplify,

wait, isn't is already simplified?

The scale give us illusion that strategy and tactic are not the same. 

Tactics are short term. Strategy is long term.

@tygxc what is short term what is long term, how do you define the limit in a non arbitrary way ?

@27
Tactics is just a few moves < 10, strategy is many moves > 10.
Tactics is about some attack or gain of material. Strategy is about a won endgame.

Strategy is how you would set up your pieces on the board so that you will have long term advantages. Example of this are center square controls, development of pieces, castling, time management, controlling open files, opening and blocking pieces and so on.

Tactics are how you take an opportunity by taking action immediately ("Strike while the iron is hot"). Example of this are material gain, making or eliminating threats, making or removing a defender, checkmate, trading pieces, pass pawns and so on.

@tygxc that's what I said, you arbitrarily choose 10, why not 9 or 14 ? In fact you recognize that this is the same except you indtroduce an arbitrary limit of 10.

To me this is the same thing, try to find the best move by anticipating what could happened next. Whatever you can anticipate more than 10 moves or not this is fondamentaly the same exercice.

Imagine a computer trying to find the next move with an algorithm. Depending on it's compute power it will be able or not to anticipate more than 10 moves but the algorithm is still the same, still doing the same thing. So ...

When you conceive of, and plan to execute the Greek Gift sacrifice Bxh7+, as part of a Kingside attack, that's a strategy.

When you actually play the move Bxh7+ when executing your strategy, that's a tactic.

@30
Tactics is what you calculate, strategy is what you anticipate.
I arbitrarily said 10 moves as a calculation horizon.
It can be more or less than 10.
This is a game with 21 moves of tactics.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1084375 
This is a pure strategy game: white weakens black's structure and exploits it in the endgame.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1066898 

Literally, strategy and tactics are basically the same. Humans are not good at computing too many moves, that is why they call a rule of thumb moves as strategy. While the computed moves are tactics. There is no black and white between the two because it depends on a player's capacity on how much he can compute.

@33
Here is a pure tactics game, where white admitted he could not calculate all
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139685 
So even if the calculation horizon is exceeded it is still tactical.
Maybe
Tactics = related to checkmate or win of material
Strategy = related to winning an endgame

That is the essence of the difference. Any further discussion is about examples of either.

@35
Yes, that is right.
Here is an example of a pure strategy game that does not go to an endgame.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102400 

There are three parts of a game of chess. Opening, middlegame and endgame. In opening, since you cannot compute most of the board it is basically dominated by strategy. In middlegame, since the board is already set up but most of the pieces are still blocked, it consist of half strategy and half tactics. But in endgame, since most of the pieces can move unimpeded it is mostly consist of tactics.

That answer is rather witty.

In fact, it is far wittier than mine.

My only quibble is that it is more likely to be understood by someone who already agrees with my answer.

@tygxc so could you elaborate on the difference you make between anticipate and calculate.

As far as I understand it, anticipation in chess is done exclusively by calculation. They are stictly equivalent in the contexe of chess, isn't it ?

@40
"could you elaborate on the difference you make between anticipate and calculate"
++ It is the difference between calculate and evaluate.
If you calculate all the way to checkmate, then you do not need to evaluate: the evaluation is checkmate.
If you calculate some number of moves, and there is neither checkmate nor win of material,
then you have to evaluate the resulting position,
i.e. you have to anticipate the outcome if you play further than you can calculate.

"They are stictly equivalent in the contexe of chess, isn't it ?"
++ No, I gave 2 examples @32 @34 of pure tactics and 2 examples @32 @36 of pure strategy.

Tactics is short term, strategy is long term.
It is hard to define what is short and long.

@38
'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

Yes this is spot on, but again difficult to define precisely.