Chess paints a clear picture of the strategy/tactics distinction to me. Tactics is concrete. Carry out these steps, and some goal is achieved. It’s the action

Chess paints a clear picture of the strategy/tactics distinction to me. Tactics is concrete. Carry out these steps, and some goal is achieved. It’s the action that actually moves something forward. I can prove that I can checkmate my opponent in 3 moves or less by following these steps. I threaten two pieces simultaneously, and you can only defend one. Strategy is a proxy, a general objective that aims to put one into a position where tactical steps can be carried out. If there’s no immediate tactical steps to carry out, then I try to “control more space” or “make my pieces more mobile” or “protect my king” or whatever. An accumulation of these nebulous strategic advantages tend to, eventually, lead to a state where I can forcibly carry out a series of steps that gain an objective advantage. But sometimes obtaining a strategic advantage doesn’t pan out. I gain the “initiative” and my opponent is on his heels struggling to defend, but in the end he’s able to defend, and I have nothing to show for it. In practice, tactics are less certain, but still highly probable. If we send a package via courier, a high percentage of the time it will arrive at its destination. But once in rare while the courier has an accident and our package doesn’t arrive. Tactics and strategy are also relative to skill level. I can’t carry out a checkmate in 40 moves. I’m left to try to achieve a strategic advantage, like “keep my opponent’s king boxed in”, until sometime later I can hopefully see that forced checkmate in 3 moves. But a computer can detect the forced checkmate in 40 moves, and also carry out the correct steps to completion. The computer can execute on that skillset better than I can, and so a situation that requires strategy for me is tactical to the computer.