Tactics and Strategy, many people have wondered the difference between the two in general since they seem to mean the same thing, even with all the resources online it is still hard to pinpoint the classification. Or is it? The difference is actually quite easy to understand.
At least in chess, many people have mistaken the general definition of these two words as something that would apply to chess which is absolutely wrong. When chess players describe a tactic or a strategy in chess it actually means something different than the definition that you would find in the dictionary.
Luckily I am here to explain, this article would provide many examples and clarification on these two words. If you are interested in learning about this topic, keep on reading.
Tactics in chess give apparent advantage, strategies do not
A tactical shot involves a brief series of moves, generally including an attack or a capture, that is designed to achieve an instant concrete advantage. When evaluating a move the first thing you look for is the tactic, a combination where the return is apparent.
If a particular move leads to a position where the return can be immediately seen, it is generally considered a tactic. A strategy in chess is more on the positional side, a subtle scheme that needs a deeper move that needs an analysis to find the purpose.
This is why most tactics involve a capture or a huge material advantage, these are the returns that one would consider as obvious. If you have played any chess puzzle challenges, then you know that most of the combinations will lead to a position that is obviously winning at a first glance.
This is because people solve chess challenges for fun, no one would want to spend hours trying to do a strategic move that doesn’t give some sort of apparent advantageous finish. If someone were to spend a lot of time trying to solve a chess puzzle there better be a good return that can be seen on hand.
If you have ever tried any of these chess puzzles then you can recognize a tactic immediately, almost all chess puzzles are essentially a tactic due to the nature of solving these challenges in the first place. Strategic puzzles are quite boring for most people, a puzzle that is centered around a tactic will satisfy more puzzle solvers.
Strategic moves in chess usually do not give any apparent advantage that can be seen by a beginner, it is an improvement to the position hoping for a good tactical shot later. Tactics on the other hand will boast a return after some 3-6 moves only (though there are some exceptions) this is the primary way you can spot a tactic over a strategy.
If it leads to an advantageous position after a short sequence of moves then it is almost always considered a tactic, otherwise it is a strategic move.
Tactics require a mistake/blunder, a strategy can thrive on inconsistencies
Chess tactics are most often thought of as an aggressive set of moves that allow you to gain material or force a win. Such decisive tactical shots are frequently made available as a result of a mistake made by one of the players, or both of the players.
If both of the players played precisely there would almost always be no tactical shots available since the combination would have been prevented beforehand, if a tactic were to be made possible in the first place a mistake has to occur.
It could also be a blunder (but also a mistake) since these are the commitments that would give a space for tactics to occur. The point is positions where tactics thrive are usually preventable with correct play, or it could be forced with a sacrifice which would lead to an advantageous position for the defending side.
Mikhail Tal is pretty famous for this (forcing tactics on good positional players), however he also serves as a good example of what you should not do as a beginner in chess. People who try to emulate how he plays before they have even learned how to compete decently will only fail with time.
Mikhail Tal is already a master of tactics, he has spent years trying to understand how he could make an aggressive style of play work against great positional players. A beginner who knows nothing about tactics will only fail trying to force it.
Strategies on the other hand do not require a committed mistake/blunder in order to be played, even against perfect play good strategic moves can be a powerful weapon. Where strategies thrive the most are the inconsistencies, a long-term strategy can find a hole in an inconsistency.
Tactics cannot be implemented if the opponent does not allow it, a strategy on the other hand can be good even without a mistake (or even become powerful with just an inconsistency).
Strategy in chess are long-term moves while tactics are short-term moves
Chess strategy is a word that refers to the long-term goals you want to accomplish in the game (usually involves a decision where the return is not apparent). In other words, whereas strategy requires forethought, tactics need computation.
Strategies are the complete opposite of tactics, whereas tactics are based on short-term initiatives, strategies are mostly long-term schemes where the advantage cannot be seen at a first glance. These are the moves that a lot of beginners struggle with.
Most beginners will learn a thing or two about tactics and forget about strategic moves completely, these are after all the usual “boring moves” that don’t lead to an advantage immediately. The ironic thing is you can actually be a good player if you only learn about strategy and have very little tactics.
A strategic move is positional, maybe developing a piece that is not doing anything and getting it involved for future combinations. Something like this though doesn’t lead to a quick advantage will be beneficial long term if any capture fest occurs.
Another strategic move is getting the king slightly more active before the opponent’s king in the endgame. It is well known that a more active king can single handedly win the game at this stage of chess.
Did you see the difference between this and tactics in general? Strategic moves pander to the long-term initiatives rather than winning something immediately. Tactics is better since it can win you the game immediately but it requires a mistake from the opponent which they may not give you.
Strategies on the other hand are more flexible, something that you could implement even without any compromise from the opponent. The benefit may not be obvious and concrete, but at least you are not the one giving the mistake/blunder for your opponent to take advantage.
Strategy in chess is the goal while tactics are the objectives to reach the goal
The points above clearly state how strategy and tactics differ in the context of chess, however through browsing in different forums it has come to my knowledge that there is also a different meaning regarding strategy and tactics. I have wondered if this will also apply to playing chess.
Traditionally, strategy addresses the issue of “What should I do?” whereas tactics address the question of “How should I go about doing that?” During the course of a chess game, a chess player is required to respond to both queries. This might sound different from what I have discussed above but not really.
If you think about it, tactics that are oriented to short-term gains can be a part of a general strategy that a player decides to implement in the game. A chess game can be decided by multiple tactical shots and not just one out of the line tactical combination (although most professionals can take advantage of any little advantage).
A series of tactics can be a strategy that have long-term benefits, this is especially true for lower rated games where a player cannot fully convert on their advantages. If it is played by a professional then it is likely that any minimal edge will convert to a victory since the professional knows how to take advantage.
If it is played by a lower rated player then a tactic can be watered down to a simple strategic move since it doesn’t necessarily lead to a win at their particular level, the skill level of the players matter to this as well. I think this definition gives a sense of flexibility to the tactic/strategic differentiation since the classification can change depending on the skill level.
Strategies are usually positional moves and tactics are usually aggressive moves
One of the easiest ways to differentiate a tactic from a strategy is the level of aggressiveness in a particular move. Different moves will either be aggressive or positional, the more aggressive the move is the likely it is to be a tactic (as long as it actually leads to something).
Of course this is different from the active or passive move classification, an active move can also be a positional scheme (strategy) rather than an aggressive one (tactical). Basically if it involves an attack, capture, sacrifice, checkmate, or any situation that sounds similar to those mentioned then it is aggressive (and therefore a tactic).
If it is calm/quiet, basically improving the position of a minor piece, fixing the pawn structure, a prophylactic move, making some of the pieces more active, or any move that are similar to those mentioned then the move is a strategic one. It is quite subtle, a move where you cannot fully tell if it will lead to an advantage.
After failing to take advantage of a tactic, you should consider switching to a strategic move. A strategy is a long-term plan or concept that is implemented in chess to gain long-term advantages. It is more often than not focused on strategic considerations rather than on attack and captures.
If you are getting confused on differentiating the two then you should always remember this, if the sequence involves an attack/capture then you should consider that a tactic. If it doesn’t yet is vital for improvement of the position and would later give enough advantages to win, then it is a strategy.
A strategy can be a tactic and a tactic can be a strategy
I just have to include this before finishing the article. Some people think that you are either a “tactical” player or a “strategic” player as if they’re talking about these concepts as two different skills that cannot be mastered at once. This is obviously not true, being good at both is necessary to master chess.
Strategy and tactics are inextricably interwoven with one another. Moves that are strategically focused often have the goal of laying the stage for future tactical combinations and vice versa.
Even the famous magician of riga (Mikhail Tal) that is known for their tactical prowess has a deep sense of strategic analysis ahead of some players of his time, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to win games that occur in the endgame (which are focused on strategic concepts).
A strategy can turn into a tactic in the sense that long-term moves can turn into a tactical combination if enough mistakes have been committed, this is also the case the other way around. A tactic can turn into a strategy if the sequence leads to a minor advantage that requires further play (being up a single pawn after a crazy sacrifice for example).
In the instance where there is a single pawn advantage after a crazy sacrifice, there is obviously an apparent advantage on hand. However, it requires further play that the “apparent advantage” is watered down to a long-term advantage.
A lot of people get confused between the difference of a tactic and a strategy in chess, but this is actually quite normal if you are just starting on your journey. As you get better you would further understand the difference between the two and can tell which is which instantly.
This is necessary if you want to improve, I hope that this article will reduce the learning curve since the difference has been explained clearly. That is all, thank you for reading.