4 ms·
> if you leave your pieces vulnerable to tactics that your opponent can find and you can't, then it's all for nought. In my book, {avoiding hanging pieces, pla
by mci 6y ago
> if you leave your pieces vulnerable to tactics that your opponent can find and you can't, then it's all for nought.
In my book, {avoiding hanging pieces, placing your pieces so that the opponent cannot pin them} ⊂ strategy, being wary of forks ∈ tactics.
- chki 6y ago>avoiding hanging pieces, placing your pieces so that the opponent cannot pin them So maybe I don't understand your mathematical shorthand correctly but those things are definitely not widely regarded to be a part of strategy. Edit: and if they were we would no longer be in disagreement. So apparently our different views simply come from different definitions.
- mci 6y ago> and if they were we would no longer be in disagreement. I tried to explain my (perhaps unorthodox) understanding of strategy and tactics in the last paragraph of my grandparent comment. EDIT: Now I can see that I was framed into the tactics:strategy dichotomy by the answers to my top-level comment. To get a better verbalisation of my ideas, replace "strategy" with "principles" in all I wrote.
- srtjstjsj 6y agoI think you are using nonstandard language. Tactics are short term material wins. Hanging a piece is absolutely tactics, it's a one-move tactic. You seem to be saying that "defending against tactics" is strategy, which I guess it is, but it's a very tiny strategy that won't fill a "study". Once you know the idea of "find your opponent's best move before you choose your move". There's no more of the strategy to study , you just apply the tactic every turn. Things like maintaining control of many squares, building a >3-move plan around depriving the opponent's bishop of mobility, and switching between these plans when they are inevitably interrupted, is strategy that takes a lot of time to study.