Difference between Strategy and Positional play?

@jonesmh

@Savage47 doesn#t understand what he is writing about. Sorry, it's useless to discuss this. If he doesn't understand this sentence: " It doesn't matter what the english meaning of strategy is in this discussion." independent of agreement or disagreement he's out. Hard but true and meant without offense.

@jonesmh

No, one of my degrees is in economics. The definition of "strategy" in game theory is extremely specific and would confuse almost anyone outside of economics. One glance at the wikipedia page would show you that.

The definition you gave for strategy is "Strategic play is the plan--supposed to take advantage of positional elements."

Now, looking at the wikipedia page lets note some differences:

Wki says: (referring to game theory)
"A strategy on the other hand is a complete algorithm for playing the game, telling a player what to do for every possible situation throughout the game."

Is a chess strategy a "complete algorithm"? No. (In fact that directly contradicts what you said about strategy being dynamic) Does it tell you " ..what to do for every possible situation throughout the game" ? No. My plan at the beginning of a chess game isn't going to tell me how to handle every tactic that occurs throughout the game.

Wki also says: "In game theory, a player's strategy is any of the options which he or she chooses in a setting where the outcome depends not only on their own actions but on the actions of others."

Key idea. In game theory strategy is always dependent on the response. But in chess, I can have a strategy without even knowing who my opponent is, what moves will be made or even playing a game. Your definition of strategy is a plan. Can I create a plan sitting by myself in a room thinking? Yeah, I can.

You lose all credibility when you claim to be something and then demonstrate you don't understand what you would have learned on day 1 class 1 of the thing you claim to be. That's like someone claiming to be a GM and then asking how the horsey moves. Or a doctor who can't figure out how to use a stethoscope.

I don't know that there is a problem except that a couple of people keep saying I'm wrong and yet no one has offered anything substantive to back that up.

I don't mind being wrong but you've got to come with something better than "I'm an expert, trust me" while at the same time demonstrating you are anything but an expert.

@jupp53

Not only did I understand it but I responded to it in several different ways. Maybe it's you who's not understanding.

@Savage47
My bachelor degrees are economics, accounting, and finance. Your post #22 is just defensive babble. The most important line is the one which proves you own fallacy: "I'm an expert, trust me".
IDK what Wiki you're referring, but the book "Strategies and games Theory and Practice" by Prajit K. Dutta gives a completely different definition. Should I believe an expert which is referenced by scholars or a web page which can be edited by anyone?
However, reducing your quote down into layman's terms, a strategy is basically a plan. And this plan does change based upon what your opponent does play.
Your absurd examples of making a plan to include all of a chess game's possibilities is the real object of the game, but you humans are limited by your lack of knowledge.
Key idea, as you point out, is that, just like in chess, game theory is always dependent on the response--which contradicts you on the chess game theory. In a long game that would last several hundred years, it would be impossible to determine every possible response, let alone the best action to take. This is an example that would clearly represent a chess game.
IDK what you're trying to explain by your inane examples as they're not relevant to any part of the discussion.

As you've proven that you're argument skills are lacking, I suggest that you stop these incompetent posts.

Just a thought, which I don't want an answer: "Why extend the meaning of a word when the intended usage was already clear?"

@jupp53 It's clear that (s)he doesn't understand. He may have a degree, but that just proves that the education standards have really become lax in America.

@Savage47

The question of standards in education is really difficult. And a single case doesn't prove anything. So I won't blame a nation, neither my german home nor any other country, without clear scientific results.

What's about the off-topic discussion I say thank you and will answer PM. Here I prefer to look at the question of the TO, which has caught my attention.

@nonEsiste

Your quote shows one point: The concepts are not disjunct. "Tactics" are a tool for several purposes. "Positional Play" is another tool. If I succeed in finding a good example I will post it.

@jonesmh

“My bachelor degrees are…”
Dude just give it up. We already proved your level of understanding of game theory was below that of a 5 year old who knows how to google. Continuing to double down and make more ridiculous claims doesn’t prove anything. Anyone can claim anything on the internet but if you can’t demonstrate a basic understanding everyone knows you’re lying. The fact that you don’t understand the single most basic concept in game theory proves your statement about being a “game theorist” wasn’t true and destroys any credibility in all future claims.

“Your post #22 is just defensive babble.”
No it was actually a point by point refutation of everything you said backed up by facts. If you can’t comprehend that that’s more of a “you” problem.

“he book "Strategies and games Theory and Practice" by Prajit K. Dutta…”
Actually his definition is virtually identical and contains all of the elements I talked about. Its on page 20 of the edition I’m looking at. You get that in academic circles definitions for basic concepts are pretty much agreed on by everybody right? If someone is going to challenge what the rest of the field believes its not going to be in a textbook.

“Your absurd examples of making a plan…”
You obviously didn’t understand what I said. But if we take what you just said to its logical conclusion that would mean strategy couldn’t exist in chess which contradicts what you’ve said in other posts.

“…ust like in chess, game theory is always dependent on the response…”
Wrong. As I explained earlier, in chess, I can formulate a plan without even playing a game. As an example, the Ruy Lopez exchange. I know what the pawn structure will likely be and I know key positional concepts like black having the 2 bishops. I can begin formulating a plan before the pieces are even on the board. Game theory is different. In game theory I have to know every possible move and every possible response in order to begin to say I have a strategy. You didn’t respond to the other two differences I gave by the way.

“IDK what you're trying to explain by your inane examples…”
These are the most basic concepts in game theory. If you had ever sat in a college classroom and spent one day learning game theory you would know what I was talking about even if I didn’t explain it well. Everything I said is in that book you referenced earlier too. If you would like I can cite the specific pages.
So, I’ve explained it. I’ve cited Wikipedia articles that explained it. I’ve shown that your own book explains it and allegedly you even have a degree in it (and allegedly a career) and yet the basics are so over your head that your only response is “I don’t even know what you’re saying, man”.

Seriously, I don’t know how anyone could ever take anything seriously again. You have zero credibility in this subject and you’re basing your entire argument on your credibility.

Long story short that means you were proven wrong.

@nonEsiste

I'm sorry others hijacked the thread.

It seems like you mostly agree with what I said. My main point was to focus on ideas rather than the words used to describe things. What Sargon said was pretty similar.

Unfortunately, like most internet forums, trolls show up and try to turn it into a **** measuring contest. Unfortunately for them, I always win those contests.