Is this really a tactic?

Scottrf, do you accept "ex falso quodlibet" as a logical principle?

If "Mate in 1" is tactics then "capture in 1" is tactics too. IMHO anything related to specific moves and calculation is tactics, while strategy is related to ideas. Such problems make sense because like in real game you have to calculate in order to find out if it's your opponent's blunder ot a trap.

Every move cannot be a tactic by definition.

If every move is a tactic then every move must have it's own end. This is obviously not true. Most tactics involve several moves having a collective end. Together they are a tactic but not individually.

I have been beaten by GMs that would be classified as " tactical " players and by GMs that would be classified as " positional " players and I can tell you from first hand experience there IS a difference .  Ofcourse a GM can play either way and are very strong in both tactics and strategy but in positions where given a choice of winning paths they distinguish themselves by the choice they make .... 

I don't think it makes sense to use general definition when we talk about something very specific - chess tactics. Here are 2 definitions I've found:

"In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves that limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain."

"Tactics - play characterized by short-term attacks and threats, often requiring extensive calculation by the players, as distinguished from positional play."

And yes - every move is a tactic. On every move one has to calculate and check if the opponent has forced or forcing reply. May be the opening moves are an exception while you follow memorized line - but that's only because somebody has already verified that it is tactically sound.

If every move is a tactic why do we have two different terms for moves and tactics? I just don't think it's reasonable to say that every move is a tactic. Consider the following:

If every move is a tactic then in this diagram white and black have both completed four tactics. But how much sense does that make? Nothing has been accomplished.

Every move is not a tactic , thats just nonsense from people who know little of chess .   1 e4  is NOT a tactic ....   sheeesh 

Ok let me rephrase it differently - on every move one has to take tactics into account, which means checking if there are forcing moves or forcing replies with short-term gains. e4 is an exception only because it has already been proved by thousands of players that there's nothing forcing about it. Do you agree with this?

Tactics:  A term used to describe a short-term sequence of moves involving threats and counter threats. Maneuvers that take advantage of short-term opportunities.   A position with many traps and combinations is considered to be tactical in nature.

I agree with this definition . 

This doesn't exclude one-move tactics. Problems "mate in 1" are tactical problems, aren't they?

Most mating problems/puzzles are reached from tactical sequences ( tactics )  leading to mate . 

Does it mean one doesn't have to check tactics on every move? At your level it might be a split of a second to see that position is "quiet". But beginners struggle mostly with pieces left "en prise" and this is one-move tactics. And let's not forget mate in 1 in Kramnik vs Fritz.

Yes, you should check for various things on almost every move . You should be aware of checks for example and when your opponent threatens something .... etc .  In the Kramnik game he simply overlooked that the beast was threatening a mate in one , so he didnt defend against it and got mated .  If you leave pieces " en prise " and your opponent takes them there isnt really a tactic involved .  You hang a piece , he takes it . If I pin your Q against your K with a B and then take it there is a tactic involved .... 

I don't quite understand how seeing a piece "en prise" or mate in 1 is different from seeing a pin. And in any of these cases after you see it some calculation has to be done and possible replies considered (even for mate in 1 a beginner has to verify that it is a checkmate indeed).

If my opponent hangs a piece and I take it there isnt any calculation involved .  If he attempts to give me a piece in a complicated position and there are traps involved then there is likely calculation involved .  

But how do you know if it's a hang or a trap? How can you distinguish without calculation and without considering his possible replies?

An example :  1 e4  e5  2 Ba6 ?  Nxa6 involves no calculation and there are really no tactics involved .... white gave away a piece for nothing and black took it .  

You know that 2 Ba6 is never played in this position, is terribly bad and can be punished right away. Me at 1700 - well I kind of know it too, but I will spent few seconds to double check (=calculate). A total beginner will have no clue. If he playes Nxa6 without even thinking - I don't know if it's a good habit.

All this just confirms that one doesn't have to calculate in position he knows.

Uri, it seems to me that checking to make sure there are no tactics or traps at work is not the same as an actual tactic. Your example of a total beginner having no clue whether 2. ba6 is a trap and needing to check for it doesn't make capturing the hanging piece a tactic. It's just taking the piece. Tactics aren't moves that require thought. As someone defined for us, they're sequences of moves with specific goals.

I agree that this is not a commonly recognized tactical motif (like fork, pin, skewer etc.). At chesstempo they call it "Hanging Piece" http://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html#hangingpiece

They say: "This is not a real tactical motif. It describes the initial position of a problem in which the opponent has left a piece to be taken for free, or has left a more valuable piece to be taken by a piece of lesser value."

However I do prefer to see it as a valid tactical motif. You know "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck etc". First you have to see it (a pin, a fork, a hanging piece). Then you have to verify that playing along the motif is sound (checking possible replies and calculation). So I really don't see why to separate it from the rest of tactics.