Tactics short time strategy
Strategy long time tactics
Strategy long time tactics
I think strategy is your overall long-term plan (for example, a queenside pawn push if your opponent plays a certain opening) while tactics are concrete, short-term actions you take to support your strategy.
Thanks for all the inspiring reply and discussion all the way. They help a lot. Based on the discussion above, I would like to adjust my thought as below:
Strategy is ensuring you getting the tactics that will work laterly, and stopping your oppenent from getting any tactics which will work in the future. In simple words, strategy is tactic building. If there is a tactic,you execute it. If there is no tactic exist, you try to build one by improving the position. As I asked before, why we improve position and for what? For better tactic possibility in the future. For a good tactic that will be coming soon. How we win a game? By checkmate or winning pieces. Whatever we execute a checkmate or win any piece, it is a certain specific tactic that works well. So the specific tactic is the final shot that bring us the victory.
Strategy is ensuring you getting the tactics that will work laterly, and stopping your oppenent from getting any tactics which will work in the future. In simple words, strategy is tactic building. If there is a tactic,you execute it. If there is no tactic exist, you try to build one by improving the position. As I asked before, why we improve position and for what? For better tactic possibility in the future. For a good tactic that will be coming soon. How we win a game? By checkmate or winning pieces. Whatever we execute a checkmate or win any piece, it is a certain specific tactic that works well. So the specific tactic is the final shot that bring us the victory.
Thanks for all the inspiring reply and discussion all the way. They help a lot. Based on the discussion above, I would like to adjust my thought as below:
Strategy is ensuring you getting the tactics that will work laterly, and stopping your oppenent from getting any tactics which will work in the future. In simple words, strategy is tactic building. If there is a tactic,you execute it. If there is no tactic exist, you try to build one by improving the position. As I asked before, why we improve position and for what? For better tactic possibility in the future. For a good tactic that will be coming soon. How we win a game? By checkmate or winning pieces. Whatever we execute a checkmate or win any piece, it is a certain specific tactic that works well. So the specific tactic is the final shot that bring us the victory.@Alientcp said in #7:
> For better position?
> You do understand, for instance, that firing from the top of a hill to the bottom is more advantageous than on the reverse side right? So you can hold off attackers with less people in the top of the hill than if both sides were on flat terrain. And you can use the rest of the manpower to push somewhere else.
> So they have to take the long road instead of trying to take the hill and lose too many men.
>
> That is called strategical positioning, not tactical positioning.
>
> Same with chess. A bishop is often more useful on b5 than on f1. If you block the coordination of the opponents pieces you can easily attack, or say you block a rook from a file and you have an isolated pawn on that file, there is nothing to stop it.
>
> Tactics are a part of strategy, but strategy is not to use tactics as a whole, it is setting up a win condition to work, tactics or not. Usually just position itself.
Very reasonable and inspiring. As for my point of view, strate is certainly Not just simply using tactics,but build and create a specific tactic that will execute the final shot and bring the victory.
Strategy is ensuring you getting the tactics that will work laterly, and stopping your oppenent from getting any tactics which will work in the future. In simple words, strategy is tactic building. If there is a tactic,you execute it. If there is no tactic exist, you try to build one by improving the position. As I asked before, why we improve position and for what? For better tactic possibility in the future. For a good tactic that will be coming soon. How we win a game? By checkmate or winning pieces. Whatever we execute a checkmate or win any piece, it is a certain specific tactic that works well. So the specific tactic is the final shot that bring us the victory.@Alientcp said in #7:
> For better position?
> You do understand, for instance, that firing from the top of a hill to the bottom is more advantageous than on the reverse side right? So you can hold off attackers with less people in the top of the hill than if both sides were on flat terrain. And you can use the rest of the manpower to push somewhere else.
> So they have to take the long road instead of trying to take the hill and lose too many men.
>
> That is called strategical positioning, not tactical positioning.
>
> Same with chess. A bishop is often more useful on b5 than on f1. If you block the coordination of the opponents pieces you can easily attack, or say you block a rook from a file and you have an isolated pawn on that file, there is nothing to stop it.
>
> Tactics are a part of strategy, but strategy is not to use tactics as a whole, it is setting up a win condition to work, tactics or not. Usually just position itself.
Very reasonable and inspiring. As for my point of view, strate is certainly Not just simply using tactics,but build and create a specific tactic that will execute the final shot and bring the victory.
#14 I think it's a mistake to think that a tactic has to mean checkmate or getting a decisive material advantage, though. For instance, suppose white would like to play some strategically desirable move like improving a piece or gaining space on the king's side, but they've moved their rook away from a1 and a black bishop is threatening the a2 pawn. They might hold off their plan until they've saved the pawn, but alternatively they might notice that it'd be tactically losing for black to take the pawn, because they can trap the bishop with b3 and win it with Ra1. In this case, the tactical idea isn't helping them to win the bishop (unless their opponent blunders), it's letting them carry out their strategic idea more quickly and hence, presumably, more effectively.
You see this sort of thing a lot in opening theory, eg 3... a6 in the Ruy Lopez is a strategically sensible move but if 4. Bxf6 dxf6 5. Nxe5 didn't lose the pawn back tactically to Qd4 then it'd be pretty much unplayable rather than being the historic main line.
Alternatively a tactic might just give you a positional advantage. Eg in the Scotch Game, after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5 5 Be3, the natural looking 5... d6 walks into a tactic with 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bxc5 dxc5 8 Qxd8 Kxd8, leaving black with an utterly horrible pawn structure and no castling rights. White is obviously going to play this tactic if they get the chance, but the position they get is still going to take some good strategic play to win.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5 5 Be3, the natural looking 5... d6 walks into a tactic with 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bxc5 dxc5 8 Qxd8 Kxd8, leaving black with an utterly horrible pawn structure and no castling rights. White is obviously going to play this tactic if they get the chance, but the position they get is still going to take some good strategic play to win.
I think one ought to tell when making a definition and when telling consequences, otherwise it is ping-pong in all directions.
Perhaps we all have a sense of exemplar situations where the planning or decision process would be best referred to as tactics, and the other strategy. But why try to have these be the sole criteria for definition. Why not dissect and involve perhaps more than one dimension, and drop "tactics" versus "strategy" by looking at what the common sensical notions tell us.
I notice 2 dimensions in all posts and threads about such dichotomy, and have the impression that people are orbiting in that "plane" criss-crossing various curves instead of considering the plane.
There is the empty squares, the material, and the time scale. I have seen the material versus non-material signals from the FEN, as decision making input as one dichotomy (entangled with the other) and the time scale, ply per ply, versus what people restrict as the notion of plan. (planning itself could be applied to tactics, but we restrict it to longer time scale, we might even skip the alternance in such decision making or wondering).
why not just talk about material or not and short time scale versus long? which are decidable notions (at least relatively) make a table and then draw potatoes (Venn Diagrams) on such plane for what each of us mean by tactics or strategy?
Perhaps we all have a sense of exemplar situations where the planning or decision process would be best referred to as tactics, and the other strategy. But why try to have these be the sole criteria for definition. Why not dissect and involve perhaps more than one dimension, and drop "tactics" versus "strategy" by looking at what the common sensical notions tell us.
I notice 2 dimensions in all posts and threads about such dichotomy, and have the impression that people are orbiting in that "plane" criss-crossing various curves instead of considering the plane.
There is the empty squares, the material, and the time scale. I have seen the material versus non-material signals from the FEN, as decision making input as one dichotomy (entangled with the other) and the time scale, ply per ply, versus what people restrict as the notion of plan. (planning itself could be applied to tactics, but we restrict it to longer time scale, we might even skip the alternance in such decision making or wondering).
why not just talk about material or not and short time scale versus long? which are decidable notions (at least relatively) make a table and then draw potatoes (Venn Diagrams) on such plane for what each of us mean by tactics or strategy?
@handsomestt said in #15:
> Very reasonable and inspiring. As for my point of view, strate is certainly Not just simply using tactics,but build and create a specific tactic that will execute the final shot and bring the victory.
I think i found the issue of why we cant agree.
In reality, tactics are really low scale and are localized. While they might impact the local struggle, in reality, they have little to no impact on the grand scheme.
Strategy rules always in the grand scheme of things.
But the problem is that the chessboard is not big enough, and a little tactic often has more impact on other sides of the board than it should have using the proper context of the word.
> Very reasonable and inspiring. As for my point of view, strate is certainly Not just simply using tactics,but build and create a specific tactic that will execute the final shot and bring the victory.
I think i found the issue of why we cant agree.
In reality, tactics are really low scale and are localized. While they might impact the local struggle, in reality, they have little to no impact on the grand scheme.
Strategy rules always in the grand scheme of things.
But the problem is that the chessboard is not big enough, and a little tactic often has more impact on other sides of the board than it should have using the proper context of the word.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.