Originally posted by buddy2
As someone said previously, Soltis said, chess is not 99% tactics, it's 99% calculation. And calculation is necessary for strategy and tactics. You can't ignore either and be a decent player. You might have an open position where your opponent rakes with two bishops. You see a tactic in which you force the exchange one of your knights for one of his bis ...[text shortened]... f strategic principles, like weak color complexes, pawn structure, etc., you'll only go so far.
1) Saying that the game is 99% calculation is like saying the game is mostly thinking.
It should be obvious that even making your first move requires some sort of calculation. Where are the pieces? Where can they go? What could I do afterwards?
2) Strategic aims and strageic objectives are not the same as strategy.
That as if to say your goals are the same as the method used to achieve those goals.
I would also like to point out that while "overwhelming force" is indeed a splendid win condition, it is not a strategy. Creating the method for the condition of producing an overwhelming force is teh strategy, and thus the subsequent moves made to achieve the goal can be referred to as tactics.
In short, tactics are not long term issues, and strategy can encompase both short and long term issues.
To reiterate what I previously said, "Strategy requires thought; tactics requires observation."
They can overlap to an extent, but they are not the same thing.