I can see this point, tactics being the means, and strategy being the end, and I’ve never had issues with looking at tactics problems and trying to figure out their solutions. My issue has always been trying to put it all together into one cohesiveness.
basic strategy question
Sort:
Nov 27, 2008
0
#3
As checkmate is always the ultimate end of the game, it should always be part of our strategy considerations - it's funny how often this is forgotten even by strong players 
In most positions, it is obviously not possible to calculate until checkmate. Therefore other characteristics have been described, which can be taken as aims in various stages of the game. Also, these characteristics help us to evaluate any given position (so we can estimate if we are closer to checkmating eventually or the other way around), and develop an appropriate plan.
This may sound awfully theoretical, so here's an example: In an almost equal position, there might be no way to initiate a direct mating attack, but perhaps you are able to seize an open file. As you know this is supposed to be good, you will do it simly for itself, without seeing any quick checkmate. If there are no other major drawbacks in your position, this will lead to an advatage and possibly to your winning the game eventually.
There are other positional characteristics like, central structures, pawn structures, weak/strong squares, material balance, king safety etc. etc., for further details you'd have to check one of the various books on chess strategy anyway.
Most of the things mentioned in the above paragraph are so-called static stretegems, as opposed to dynamics, which would take into account the active possibilities of your pieces, which oviously is another part of strategy. To achive an accurate assessment, it seems obvious that you need a certain mastery in the calculation of variations, which links us to the concept called tactics.
It is commonly remarked that tactics are the means by which we achieve our strategic purposes, which is true to a large extent. On the other hand, it is often impossible to judge a position correctly without calculating specific variations containing tactic elements, so it seems safe to me to state that strategy and tactics are inextricably linked.
I hope this doesn't seem too confusing; if you are interested in further details, I can recommend (among many other good ones) the Gambit books of Valeri Beim:
"Recipes from a Grandmaster Kitchen"
"How to play Dynamic Chess"
"How to Calculate Chess Tactics"
Cheers,
Torkil
Torkil,
Your first comment set off alarms in my head, simply because I’ve seen, and found myself in positions where I’m going through exchanges in my mind, and they seem irrelevant to the big picture. But, I’m beginning to get an idea relating to all of this. For instance, theory suggests that, in the opening, central control is paramount, or at least close to it. This is strategy. Gaining central control requires tactics. It seems a little obvious, but I think I’ve been looking at strategy too largely. Checkmate is the general strategy. How it’s achieved is realized through a smaller grouping of strategies like control, piece to piece ratio, things like that. Those strategies are then realized through tactics. It’s almost like breaking down an outline for a book by starting with the book as a whole, and breaking it down into chapters, pages, sentences, and even words. Am I getting closer here?
"I believe you are", says the beginner trying to look wiser than he really is 
I must say I made my own opinion, which looks like your last explanation: strategy is defining a "winning" position, tactics is a series of moves to achieve this position... we could consider "checkmate" as the ultimate strategy I suppose. This is useful when choosing books or searching for explanations, as the knowledge required to recognize a winning position is different than for calculating specific moves.
Well, I'll be glad to hear otherwise if I'm wrong!
I agree with you tonydal, though for beginners for whom it may be harder to assess such positions, hints and general concepts can be extremely useful. For example, to practice a specific concept (forking) while enjoying the game.
Note that I still agree that practice makes perfect (this sentence is wrooong! You cannot be perfect! Neveeeer!), and that as chess will become more natural, we won't have to think in such high-level terms. For the moment though, I believe it's useful to be able to say "I need to practice rook forking tactics, I never see them on the board" or "I need to adjust my strategy to concentrate on attacking, I always get burnt trying to focus only on defense".
I like to contradict people :P
Tony is mostly right. It is very much a "feel" for a position. But I do think there are broad strategies that players are very much aware of. Most openings do have basic strategies that the good playeers are aware of and consistantly apply. Take the Yugoslav Attack for instance. White knows he's attacking kingside with a pawn advance supported by his pieces, and Black knows he's doing the same on his queenside where White has castled. Straight out of Kotov and Keres. In the Tarrasch Defense Black knows he's going to have the isolated d-pawn, and he knows his strategy is going to be to utilize the open files and the pawn itself to launch attacks. White knows that blocking that pawn and exhanging pieces will lead to a winning endgame.
BTW the aim of the middle game is usually not checkmate but rather a winning endgame. Learn your endgames, and middlegame strategies will become clearer.
For about a year, on and off, I’ve been learning chess. I have a general understanding of game phases, and tactics, but I get confused in the strategy area. For me (and I admit this is likely something typical of a newer player) chess strategy revolves around checkmate, and I would also say strategy truly begins from the onset of the game. However this is where I get a little tangled up. I’m so concerned with development, and central control in the opening(which seem like strategies themselves) that I’m never sure how to take strategy past that point, or when I’ve gotten past these initial points. Are strategies a reflection of the openings played, or can any strategy work with any opening? Or is strategy really a reflection of middle game? I'll just leave it at this for the time being. Thoughts?