In Thread 144634 there was a discussion about the relation between tactics and strategy. To be honest, I was dismayed at the general lack of understanding of these two concepts. Some said strategy and tactics are intertwined and this seems like a dodge that stems from not knowing. Some said strategy is a long term plan to improve favorable tactical opportunities and this is wrong. Some said tactics are necessary to even begin to use strategy and this is simply not true. Some said with strategy you wish to visualize an ideal position and seek ways to exploit weaknesses, then you use tactics to achieve those objectives which is also wrong. Folks, this is not my opinion it is simply fact.

I stated that it is a dodge to say that strategy and tactics are intertwined, while true it is unfair to leave it at that. To delve deeper one must understand that every move is tactical and every move is part of strategy and both of these concepts require position knowledge. You say, what? Yes, you have to know the ins and outs of the position to strike upon the correct strategy and to realize if tactical opportunities are present. Take this position taken from Silman’s The Reassess Your Chess Workbook

Anand-Kamsky. Las Palmas Match 1995.
White to play.



The positional cue is the key square f5 the strategy is now to obtain an iron grip of this square. The tactics are the moves you use to achieve this goal.

Someone with a keen tactical eye might notice that 1.a4 bxa4 2.Rxa4 Rxa4 3.Bxa4 takes a defender away from the square f5 then you assess the position afterwards. Was the goal achieved? Yes. What was the cost? We traded a useless rook on a1 for a strong active rook on f4 so the cost was actually for our opponent not us. This assessment stems from a positional knowledge that it is good to trade inactive pieces for active ones. The strategy here only had to due with our goal, the tactics were the moves and the assessment is positional. We decided on a goal, then we found the moves, and lastly we assessed the result. Many times we decide to attack the king, to go after a piece or to set up a fortress; these are all strategic decisions.

In conclusion, we all use strategy, we all use tactics, and we all have a positional sense to some extent. We may not choose the correct strategy, if we do we may not use the correct tactics(make the right moves) to execute the correct strategy, and most ofus are unable to assess the position correctly but we can fix this problem. Tactics problems bring the most improvement because in reality they strike upon all of these factors; they hone our ability to make the correct moves, they show us positions in which we can find the correct strategy based upon the position. Their only failure is that they don’t teach us how to handle tactics or make the correct moves in situations where the strategic goal isn’t mating the king or gaining material. However, this isn’t a problem because once you can make clever moves that achieve these strategic goals you can make clever moves to achieve other strategic goals... you just have to learn to assess the position to find the correct goal.

Have a good day. 

Hi, you have just opened a can of worms. If white goes 1. a4 bxa4 2. Rxa4 then you have assumed that black if forced to play Rxa4 whereas he can go Raf8 and if white picks the rook then black would pick the pawn on f4 with gxf4.

How would you then rate the Kings Gambit or the Kings Indian defence as Black? Are they sound tactically? Are they sound strategically?

Originally posted by enrico20
Hi, you have just opened a can of worms. If white goes 1. a4 bxa4 2. Rxa4 then you have assumed that black if forced to play Rxa4 whereas he can go Raf8 and if white picks the rook then black would pick the pawn on f4 with gxf4.

How would you then rate the Kings Gambit or the Kings Indian defence as Black? Are they sound tactically? Are they sound strategically?

Originally posted by tomtom232
You are correct that black is not forced to play 2...Rxa4 but if he goes 2...Raf8 then 3.g3 is correct for white not 3.Rxf4.

.

Well... its an interesting idea Mr. Tomtom. But Tomtom, I think you're GPS satellite might be in the wrong quadrant. I don't disagree with much you said - outside of the fact that you said Strategy and Tactics are not connected. This seems very strange.

I don't much like the words tactics and strategy. I prefer maneuver and collision. Tactics as described by most players here seems to always encompass material being taken/traded/won. This doesn't seem fair either. Maneuver perhaps can be called strategy and perhaps you can call collision tactics, but I think both terms mean more if you give much thought to it.

You were detailing through a position the difference between strategy and tactics. A very noble attempt Mr. Tomtom. However I disagree with your assessment that tactics and strategy are different (Maneuver and collision). Like I said, I think of these two principles as yin and yang - where one overtakes the other and becomes the other...only for an instant does one exist before becoming the other. Maneuver causes collision, collision causes maneuver.

Here we see that a simple maneuver in Nf5 (your positionally assessed square) will trigger both elements...

Originally posted by wolfgang59
?
3.g3 Rxf2

Originally posted by wolfgang59
?
3.g3 Rxf2

Originally posted by PhySiQ
Well... its an interesting idea Mr. Tomtom. But Tomtom, I think you're GPS satellite might be in the wrong quadrant. I don't disagree with much you said - outside of the fact that you said Strategy and Tactics are not connected. This seems very strange.

I don't much like the words tactics and strategy. I prefer maneuver and collision. Tactics as descr nearing a semantic breakdown.
An interesting article though Mr. Tomtom!

Q

I would also like to point out that manuever and collision are the very same thing because they are both tactics.

Strategy has no direct connection to the moves on the board it is merely the idea that guides your play and it is based on key attributes in the position. Tactics are the maneuver and collision moves that try to achieve your strategic goal.

Strategy and tactics mean the same things in all other areas of life as well, they are not unique to chess.

Strategy = A plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.
Tactics = An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.

Thus connecting, indirectly, strategy to the moves on the board.

nimzo5: "The simple answer is improving your ability to "See" via tactics or w/e will greatly help your ability to carry out your strategic plans."

Originally posted by tomtom232
Your first pgn is debunked because 1...Qf8 doesn't deserve a ? because if 2.Qh5? Rxf5 3.Bxf5 Qxf5 4.Qxh6 Bxd5 and after 1...Qf6 2.Ng3? this drops a pawn to Rxf2.

Your second pgn doesn't work because 2.Qh5 doesn't accomplish anything... black doesn't need to play 2...Raf8

I would also like to point out that I said that merely stating that tactics and ...[text shortened]... have garbled some words in the latter half of the post but this was because I was rushed. 🙂

I recently wrote about this topic on my blog in a post called "Is a Sound Strategy the Basis for Chess Tactics?" which you can read here: http://tacticstime.com/?p=1907

Cheers,
Tim

Originally posted by PhySiQ
Why in the world would Rxf5 and Bxf5? silly. Rxf5 and Qg6+ and black is again in trouble.
[pgn][SetUp "1"][FEN "r5k1/1b1n2q1/pp1p3p/1p1Pp1p1/5r2/2P1N2P/PPB2PP1/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 1"]1. Nf5 Qf8 2. Qh5 Rxf5 3. Qg6+ Kh8 4. Bxf5[/pgn]

What would black do about it?...nothing. Black can only make his position worse with a separate reply. Qf8 is worse not better om that should change my mind. I don't see anything from previous that does.

Q

Originally posted by tomtom232
Your first pgn is debunked because 1...Qf8 doesn't deserve a ? because if 2.Qh5? Rxf5 3.Bxf5 Qxf5 4.Qxh6 Bxd5 and after 1...Qf6 2.Ng3? this drops a pawn to Rxf2.

Your second pgn doesn't work because 2.Qh5 doesn't accomplish anything... black doesn't need to play 2...Raf8

I would also like to point out that I said that merely stating that tactics and ...[text shortened]... have garbled some words in the latter half of the post but this was because I was rushed. 🙂

Originally posted by tomtom232
ok I was grasping because your line isn't "bad"

Just there isn't anything special after 1.Nf5 Qf6 2.Ng3 Qf7 3.Ne4 Qe7 just some repositioning of the white pieces into less advantageous positions.

and you don't get much after

1.g3 Rf6 2. Qh5 Raf8 3. Ng4 Bxd5 4. Nxf6+ Nf6

Compare that to

1. a4 Raf8 {1... bxa4? 2.Rxa4 Raf8? 3. Rxf4 gxf4?? 4.Nf5} 2. axb5 axb5 {2... a5 3.Rf1 Bc8 4. g}3 3. Ra7