Agreed. Not much to add.
I would say the first 5-10 moves are kind of like pure strategy because short term tactics might not be involved at all, but after that you kind of can't separate tactics and strategy.
Of course! There are no tactical issues in the beginning. How can there be, when no one has developed his pieces? Let's dont't forget that tactics occur in unclear when opponents have developed
Larry Evans says tactics is attacking the chess set, and strategy is attacking the chess board.
Who cares what strategy is and what tactics are? It's all chess.
It is a false dichotomy but there are differences. Tactics usually involve a forcing combination of moves (or threatening forcing combinations).
Strategy usually involves an overall idea concerning the position such as "my space advantage dictates ____ type of maneuver"
This is a lot like Evan's quote in post #5
In practice they're intertwined though, at the moment I can't think of a move that would be purely one or the other... which seems like khpa21's sentiment.
I've always had trouble distinguishing between the two. I guess strategy is more about an overall plan of action whereas tactics are skewers, forks and little combinations that allow you to gain an advantage.
I think you stated it very well.
I just recently started playing chess again when I discovered chess.com...last week :) but I actually learned to play as a kid of 8 or so by reading the rules on the little piece of paper that came with the travel chess set I got. When I started playing everything was tactics with no real strategy involved. It was actually quite an eye opener to me when I learned that people play for position instead of tactical slaughter. I actually got pretty decent at chess after practicing that (I maintained a 17XX rating on the Chessmaster computer program as I don't really know anyone else to play with and don't have the time for a club), but then I stopped playing for a few years and now need to shape back up. However, I believe that one uses strategy to win the game and uses tactics as an oppourtunistic weapon to exploit weakness in the enemy position along the way. So, strategic position rules and tactical onslaught is the arbiter of the ruling strategy.
my personal opinion is that they are the same.
Strategy is more long term, and tactics are more short term.
If you were to say~ Play poker, and you bet a lot more than the pot bluffing at it as a tactic, that would be more likely to work if your strategy at the table were to present a table image of a tight player instead of an loose player.
If chess were poker your tactics would represent 1 hand at a time, each hand being a different tactic. Your Strategy would be your history over say the last 20 or so hands.
The strategy you use will effect the tactics you need to use, and vice versa.
In life if you want the strategy of getting a wife, you must first take on the tactics of getting a job, and a girlfriend in order to follow through with that strategy for example. Because without money to buy a ring, and without a girl you can't follow through with your strategy.
Does that clear things up?
There is a distinction, though this eludes many because tactics are often a part of, though not exclusive to, strategy.
Strategy tends to be a long term plan of operations. It is not merely "checkmating the opponent," as that is the goal. If your opponent has a strong center and is securely castled kingside, your strategy may be to undermine his center, open things up, remove a key guard and attack a particular square which may be made vulnerable. The tactics are the individual short term methods of implementing such a plan. It generally requires a number of tactics, well timed and effective, to bring a strategic plan to a successful conclusion.
There are often situations which arise which may not be a part of an overall long term plan, but which offer a short term opportunity to exploit a mistake or newly created weakness. This falls into the realm of tactics, as it was completely unpredictable within the strategic considerations. However, if successful, it could subsequently cause one to change the long term strategy. In the example in the previous paragraph, perhaps your opponent made a mistake elsewhere on the board allowing you to gain a significant material edge. The strategy may now shift from a complicated focused attack which might be difficult to calculate, to a simple game of attrition, forcing trades until you can reach an easy endgame. The strategy in this case is "trade down while preserving the material advantage." The tactics are the methods used to accomplish each individual trade.
Essentially, tactics are short term methods; strategy is a long term plan requiring a number of tactics to achieve.
Or another way of looking at it: Strategy is the blueprint; tactics are the tools.
I refer you to the following thread, exhaustively answering this same question and finally taken up by IM Silman in an article (at my request).
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/combinations-or-tactis-beginners-need-not-comment
And here is a link to the actual article in response to my question:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/are-tactics-the-same-as-combinations
“Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do, strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do” – Savielly Tartakower
One has to endeavour to maintain equilibruim through all the tactics and comlpex manovering; short term gains, and the swinging pendulum of fortune. Sometimes the game maybe near to collapse, yet with good play it resolves again.
Strategy is the overall ability to guide the whole ship into the harbour of victory.
While they are intimately related, they aren't the same. Some tactically sound moves -- winning a pawn, for example -- can have strategic long term consequences that must be considered. If winning the exchange also means that your minor piece will be out of the coming fight, it might be tactically winning but strategically losing to do so.
However, they are typically the same thing -- that is the most tactically forceful line also tends to be the line that puts your pieces on the squares they need to be on in order to exert maximum pressure on the oppoenent and maintain initiative. There are times when the difference between forceing moves and long term positional demands differ. But those tend to be the exceptions from what I've seen.
I think that a lot of chess players usually struggle to learn tatctics and at some point in their life they (are forced) to learn strategic matters too. But is there a real difference between those two?
Yes, there is a real difference. To learn X first and then later be forced to learn Y means that X and Y are not the same thing, or else Y would already be known (and thus it would not be necessary to learn Y if X had already been learned). I say this only to point out that you don't really seem to believe that there is no difference between tactics and strategy, or else you wouldn't have spoken in the way you did and wouldn't believe that tactics are generally learned first.
I think tactics involves forced sequences of moves that achieve (or threaten to achieve) short-term gains, usually material gains, and strategy involves longer term plans for usually non-material gains. Of course, they are intimately related, because a non-material gain, such as controlling an open file in a closed position where the enemy camp is extremely cramped, will usually present lots of opportunities later for material gain (what makes that strategy and not tactics though is that you haven't planned the moves until you achieve a particular material gain; if you had, it would be more tactical than strategic). Similarly, the means for achieving long-term, non-material gains are often tactical in nature, as when you enter into a forced sequence of moves that threaten to win material but result in conrol of a key square or your opponent's pieces being worse in some way even though there was no material gain as a result of the forced moves.
Who cares what strategy is and what tactics are? It's all chess.
You have a really high rating, I am surprised you feel that way.
I was gonna make a reply critical of lower-rated players who bother with such semantic trifles as what tactics and strategy are, but it's not so simple.
Let's start with strategy. When I think of strategy, I think of something like Command and Conquer where, for example, there are oil rigs on both sides of the map that can be a nice source of income; there's an abandoned town close to the center of the map whose buildings can be occupied thus facilitating an eventual head-on assault while hindering their ability to attack my base, and I also need to build adequate defenses, enough power to run everything, an army to claim certain things I want and eventually vanquish my opponent, and the funds to make it all possible. That's a lot to juggle, so it takes a skilled strategist to manage everything.
What the hell did that digression have to do with chess? Very little actually. The one thing that I feel is important to mention is that moves in chess = currency in RTS games like Command and Conquer. There are limited opportunities to splurge on anything in the early stages of a battle, when the situation is in a dynamic equilibrium. Likewise in chess a move is precious in the tense stage of the opening and middlegame. I can't tell you anymore about how to play strategically than that, but isn't that what makes chess such a great game? It would be horrible if even I knew how exactly to play chess well.
Now onto tactics. I'm not sure whether or not just doing Tactics Trainer puzzles over and over again is good enough tactics study for real games. I for the most part learned tactics one at a time from losing to them and then winning with them. I'd lose a game or two to a discovered attack that costs my queen, and then I'd win my opponent's queen several times in a similar way, and then I would have become familiar enough with that tactic that I can use it to my advantage. I think my tactics suck, and you can ask the IMPOSSIBLE computer roaming live chess if you don't believe me.
Oh right, I forgot to define what a tactic is. Well, tactics are tactics; I'm sorry I can't come up with a remote analogy that won't enlighten you in any way for tactics. It should be intuitively obvious what a tactic is, as with strategy, and if it isn't, you should probably double check to make sure you aren't hanging your knight or allowing a forced mate.
my personal opinion is that they are the same.
They are not !! If i am fighing for control of a critical open file that is a strategical goal, If in that fight for that file, my opponent makes himself vernerable on his back rank that is a tactical consideration . I would say that most tactics are not planned but arise from a superior strategical plan !! But i understand your position because it really is confusing at times . 
One has to endeavour to maintain equilibruim through all the tactics and comlpex manovering; short term gains, and the swinging pendulum of fortune. Sometimes the game maybe near to collapse, yet with good play it resolves again.
Strategy is the overall ability to guide the whole ship into the harbour of victory.
That was very poetic!
I think that a lot of chess players usually struggle to learn tatctics and at some point in their life they (are forced) to learn strategic matters too. But is there a real difference between those two?
Yes, there is a real difference. To learn X first and then later be forced to learn Y means that X and Y are not the same thing, or else Y would already be known (and thus it would not be necessary to learn Y if X had already been learned). I say this only to point out that you don't really seem to believe that there is no difference between tactics and strategy, or else you wouldn't have spoken in the way you did and wouldn't believe that tactics are generally learned first.
I think tactics involves forced sequences of moves that achieve (or threaten to achieve) short-term gains, usually material gains, and strategy involves longer term plans for usually non-material gains. Of course, they are intimately related, because a non-material gain, such as controlling an open file in a closed position where the enemy camp is extremely cramped, will usually present lots of opportunities later for material gain (what makes that strategy and not tactics though is that you haven't planned the moves until you achieve a particular material gain; if you had, it would be more tactical than strategic). Similarly, the means for achieving long-term, non-material gains are often tactical in nature, as when you enter into a forced sequence of moves that threaten to win material but result in conrol of a key square or your opponent's pieces being worse in some way even though there was no material gain as a result of the forced moves.
Actually, the very first thing we learned in chess was a strategic concept. Kill the King! But then we learned that when your rating is about 1600 which I consider to be decent, checkmate is not always plausible during the middlegame and you have to win by other means such as a pawn promotion, a rook annihilation on the 7th rank etc. But the point is that combined together, all those things are roughly the same.
I think that a lot of chess players usually struggle to learn tatctics and at some point in their life they (are forced) to learn strategic matters too. But is there a real difference between those two? I don't think so. Come and think about it. You have a marvelous tactical blow and a combination of mate in 5 let's say. Yes, this is carried throuth via tactitcs but there is a HUGE strategic theme behind it, which if of course to MATE the opponent. The same applies when you grab a piece or even a cute pawn. There is strategy behind this, called material gain. So, why are tactics so separated from strategy? Ok, strategic themes like weak squares or passed pawns are of course considered more elegant but checkmate is a strategic theme also and of course everything can be translated into moves on the board using tactics. That's why both strategy and tactics are useful to a chess player. I would like your opinion on this!