Lots of good explanations here, tackling the question from various points of view, but micco’s wins the prize for all-around best explanation.
I don’t see that it is stated those are specifically tactical. Actually I thought the development was quite honest, though it is biased towards go. Chess is primarily tactics. Strong tactics dominate a chess game, very little strategy is needed. But it is needed. No one will deny that.
Absolutely.
Indeed.
This thread reminded me of a long-running debate I have had with some friends about strategy in various sports.
The way I have used “strategy” in that article is like this:
Strategy is the set of conditional plans you have based on the actions of an opponent who seeks to thwart you.
Tactics would be the normal practices you take to accomplish your goal.
Thus, in golf, hitting with the head of the club, and not the shaft would be a tactic, a thunderingly obvious one. An only slightly less obvious one would be to use a 9 iron when 120 yds away from the hole instead of a driver. I contend (surprisingly?) that there are no strategic actions you take in a golf game.
Backgammon is a strategic game, until the runners are no longer in contact. After that, the moves you would make with a given roll to bear off all men in a minimum number of rolls would be a tactic.
A plan or a goal is not a strategy. A conditional plan is not enough to be a strategy: Saying “if it is raining tomorrow I will wear X and take my umbrella to work whereas if it is sunny I will wear shorts” is not a strategy, because Nature is not chosing what the weather will be based on what actions you take.
In this sense, I think the things that in chess are usually called tactics are “short-term strategems”. What we call these in chess are not nearly as important to me as defining the notion of strategy, of which I claim Marathon racing has none!
I don’t agree that chess is primarily tactics.
I have seen (and played) winning games where no tactic was ever used. One side just built up an overwhelming attack, or dominated the white squares, or reached an ending of knight v bad bishop etc.
I accept that the definitions of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactics’ may be slightly different in chess from war and from marketing.
P.S. There’s a lot more to the Sicilan defence than acquiring the half-open c-file. Consider the last game in Deep Junior - Kasparov, where Garry sacrifices a rook on the c-file for a knight.
How would he contest any file with one rook v two?
He wanted central control, which (if any one thing is) is the point of the Sicilian.
Why do you need an opponent? Coping with the weather involves a strategy.
And why can’t a tactic be unusual?
Isn’t laying up rather than trying to cross an obstacle an example of strategy in golf?
Can’t agree with that at all. There’s nothing inherently reactionary about tactics.