When are games won on strategy?

Many writers argue that for the majority of low rated games, tactics play the key factor. One or other player will likely make a tactical error, dropping a piece, etc.

My question is: about what level does this stop happening? Where do the gears shift from tactical blundering to strategic blundering in people's experience?

I know, that on some level tactics always plays a role, but I think this analysis is right: for weaker platers there is no point avoiding weak pawn structure when you cannot avoid a knight fork. 

In peoples' experience, when does strategy start filling out as a greater component of play? When do tactical errors virtually dry up? What level of opponent should I assume makes almost no tactical errors?

(Note: if you cite ratings, please identify what type they are [USCF, FIDE, Chess.com etc]) 

Really nice question ... I don't think there's a sharp cut-off at the club level where tactics suddenly takes a back-seat. 

"Hope Chess" (players not checking to see if they have a good response to all the checks/captures/forcing moves in response to the move they are about to play => hoping they can deal with it aftewards) starts to diminish more and more past 1600 USCF.  So am thinking  that players at this level don't just  rely on the general stupidity of their opponent => Just playing safe without a plan and waiting for the other guy to trip doesn't work so well any more. You have to go after weaknesses or make well-thought-of moves that force concessions in terms of squares or pawn structures.  These strategic ideas steer the direction of play for both sides.

I always think of this as two competing waiters in a restaurant trying to stack piles of dishes on each other's trays as they pass each other ... while trying to balance their own tray at the same time :)

Depending on who is more effective, eventually one of them can't balance his tray, the dishes start falling off ... and BAM!!! A mistake is made that can be exploited!  In chess terms, this usually turns out to be the same basic tactical opportunities ... though these just happened to occur in a gradual way and not just because a player hung a piece or missed a knight-fork.

Long term strategy is only possible when both players are aware of all the immediate tactical considerations in the position or resulting from their next move.  If you don't understand ALL the tactics in a position, but your opponent does understand all the tactics (or at least understands one tactic that you don't), then any strategic thinking on your part is irrelevant.

All players make tactical errors.  That is why computer programmes are so strong.  And why coaches seem to advocate training in tactics virtually above all other forms of study.

So you have to keep looking for mistakes by your opponent.

In my opinion strategy comes in almost immediately a person discovers an interest in the game.  As soon as you are taught the opening principles you are starting to do some strategic thinking.

I agree that there is a shift from tactics to strategy with increased experiencebut but I doubt that looking for some particular point in development when strategic thinking has reached some particular level is worthwhile.  To do well at any level beyond beginner you need either or both and you will benefit from an improvement in either or both.

They aren't mutually exclusive and it's not useful to talk about them as such. Good strategy means tactics are more likely to work in your favour.

What use is a strategy if you lose a piece to a blunder?

In many positions there are no tactics at all (i.e. no good forcing moves).  There is a certain point, which depends on the position, where you do understand all the forcing moves in the position.  Then strategy plays a role.

I know they aren't mutually exclusive and I know that tactics always play a role (I said that in my question). But the beginner is told: study tactics the majority of the time; dont worry too much about openings yet; learn basic strategic principles (opening lines, knight posts, etc); and some fundamental endgame ideas. But tactics are the key.

There comes a point, where tactical errors just arent really seen any more, and the player cannot expect his opponent to eventually just drop a piece. GMs are not doing tactics puzzles anymore to improve their game. Nor are IMs probably, except perhaps to stay sharp. 

As Shivsky says, I'm wondering about that point where you play for strategic advantage rather than holding tight. As Berder says, that point where one player will see all (or virtually all) tactical issues in a position. I was just wondering at what point people think that is.

interesting question, and i wish there were a clear cut answer, but there probably isn't. it seems like some GMs and IMs will claim that this level is somwhere in the mid 2000s, or even super GM level.

whatever the case, it's definitely not mutually exclusive, and it's a gradual process. there's no one rating where things suddenly shift. people all have different strengths and weaknesses to consider, as well.

personally, my tactics are relatively weak, but i still win games "on strategy" against players who are tactically superior. i dunno how to explain it other than i just have a better plan than the other guy.

This is certainly true. Bad positions seem to automatically generate bad ideas and bad moves.

Perhaps strategy gives diminishing returns.

For example, someone with absolute zero strategy, playing someone who has learned the basic principles of chess (which technically could be learned in an hour), might be at a huge disadvantage because the latter player will be the only one with pieces that do anything useful at all.

On the other hand, someone who knows "advanced strategy" vs someone who only knows the principles might not have quite as much of an advantage as the better strategical player would in the first scenario. The point is those tiny positional gains you might get from being really good at maneuvering might not be so important since tiny gains like that can be erased by even a small tactical mistake. In general, a positional advantage that is small will allow tactics to favor you only slightly

In that case, tactical awareness is probably more of a deciding factor, as long as neither player allows some super obvious positional advantage without a fight. That could include, for example, a crushing knight outpost right in the middle. Nonetheless, even big positional advantages can still require good technique to push forward with, in my experience.