There is no difference between tactics and strategy.I don't sepperate them.
What's the Difference Between Strategy and Tactics?
Sort:
Jun 10, 2016
0
#23
0110001101101000 wrote:
heine-borel wrote:
These seem like the same thing to me.
Tactics involves gain of material (or rarely direct mate) and positional play involves improving relative piece activity. However, when an unstoppable threat is made through quiet moves, this is often considered a tactic.
So why isn't positional play simply considered "an extremely complex tactic" that involves so many moves that it is not calculatable, but simply an "intuitive tactic", since when it all comes down to it, everything must be justified through variations.
After all, when you play 2.Nf3, a good positional move, the reason it's good is because in the numerous variations, you have the choice of a better evaluation at the end of some of those variations.
Hence, the only difference between tactics and strategy I can see is the extent to which pure calculation plays a role. But I don't see anything else.
Thoughts?
That's not a bad way to put it. Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut.
But you seem to mix up strategy and positional play as the same thing. Strategy is a long term idea like on move 10 you realize if you had a king and pawn endgame right now you'd be winning, so maybe trading down favors you. This certainly doesn't rely on variations.
Positional play can be short term... you mention piece activity. That's a short term, calculate-able, positional consideration. King safety, pawn weaknesses, these can also be short term positional ideas (that have long term strategic implications). For example you calculate a short sequence and see you can force a pawn weakness, then you strategically realize that this will be favorable to you... if not in 10 moves, in 20 or 30 simply by the nature of it.
Kramnik noted that Karpov was excellent positinally, but perhaps lacking strategically while Petrosian was the opposite.
this....all of this
Earth64 wrote:
Tactics originated from tact which means manipulation of fact.
Where in the world did you get this definition of tact? In English, tact only has to do with how you deal with others in a sensitive situation.
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Jun 10, 2016
0
#26
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think 
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
I think youre demeaning strategy, like its a secondary thought in chess. Its a part of the game just like any other part. Just as important.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
That is a bit of an odd concept of strategy.
I think if you are going to go this route, it may be more accurate to say 'an approximation of the reality you hope to achieve', since strategy affects your reality later, not now.
Jun 10, 2016
0
#29
Diakonia wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
I think youre demeaning strategy, like its a secondary thought in chess. Its a part of the game just like any other part. Just as important.
Personally I find calculation tedious to preform. In addition to this, I find strategic ideas the most interesting. So from both sides of the issue (imaginary perfect players who calculate every variation to the end vs the way we play in the real world) I have a fondness for strategy. It's absolutely essential in the real world.
But if we're just talking about the concept of strategy itself and abstract chess outside of the way we interact with it in the real world, I think we see that strategy is not something inherent to the game of chess itself. Perfect players would have no use for it, as they would have all the information for each possible move.
Just like luck isn't inherent to chess, but when humans play it there will be luck involved.
Jun 10, 2016
0
#30
kleelof wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
That is a bit of an odd concept of strategy.
I think if you are going to go this route, it may be more accurate to say 'an approximation of the reality you hope to achieve', since strategy affects your reality later, not now.
Yeah, that may be a better way to say what I was trying to say.
0110001101101000 wrote:
kleelof wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
Forget tact...im still mesmorized on this...
"Even more realistically, strategy is an illusion imperfect players use as a sort of shortcut."
Is... is that because your opinion of what I said is very high or very low? I don't know what to think
I just meant that it's a sort of approximation of reality because we're not able to consider an astronomical amount of positions in a very short time. Like with the endgame thing, in general you know heading to a king and pawn endgame is good, but with that alone you can't be sure in each instance whether it's good to trade down at that time or not.
That is a bit of an odd concept of strategy.
I think if you are going to go this route, it may be more accurate to say 'an approximation of the reality you hope to achieve', since strategy affects your reality later, not now.
Yeah, that may be a better way to say what I was trying to say.
I'd be REALLY impressed if you could say it in binary. 
[COMMENT DELETED]
i think tactics are what you do and stratigy is how you do your tactics
hopes this helps!!!!!!!
[COMMENT DELETED]
ChessOfPlayer wrote:
Tactic = short term idea/plan
Strategy = long term idea/plan
clear and concise definition, thx
show yourself to be a good one ...
kleelof wrote:
Earth64 wrote:
Tactics originated from tact which means manipulation of fact.
Where in the world did you get this definition of tact? In English, tact only has to do with how you deal with others in a sensitive situation.
Tactic means for manipulation. At the beginning, both sides are equal. It is reality. After successful use of tactics, imbalance arises. They are no more equal. Reality is manipulated.
However, Meaning comes from what we mean & what is supposed to be mean. Meaning does not come from dictionary. We build it .
Earth64 wrote:
kleelof wrote:
Earth64 wrote:
Tactics originated from tact which means manipulation of fact.
Where in the world did you get this definition of tact? In English, tact only has to do with how you deal with others in a sensitive situation.
Tactic means for manipulation. At the beginning, both sides are equal. It is reality. After successful use of tactics, imbalance arises. They are no more equal. Reality is manipulated.
However, Meaning comes from what we mean & what is supposed to be mean. Meaning does not come from dictionary. We build it .
I would like to see examples of people using 'tact' they way you are describing.
'tact' Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the word 'tactic'.
You can probably learn more at the site where he copied this from:
http://www.chessfornovices.com/chessstrategyvstactics.html
tactics is to bring the gun to the bank.
strategy is to get the money and get to minnesota.