Answers.Body: <p>The difference between a tactical or a strategic/positional move lies in its justification. Almost all good moves have a positional and a tactical justification, otherwise they may be tactical or positional mistakes. The exception, of course, are moves that lead to mate or a big material advantage, those could probably be called purely tactical moves.</p>
  
  <p>Which justification is more important to you depends on your abilities and your style. If the tactical justification of a move is obvious to you, it might seem like a purely positional move. On the other hand if a move has a deep strategic idea, but requires complicated calculation, you may regard it as a tactical move. I'll give you an example: </p>
  
  <pre><code>[Title "White to move"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "rnb1kb1r/pp3ppp/2p1q3/4P2n/4Np2/5N2/PPP1Q1PP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 1 10"]
  
  1.g4 Qxg4 2.Rg1 Qe6 3.Rg5 g6 4.Rxh5
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>g4 may strike you as a very tactical move: It is a pawn sacrifice and its justification involves a lot of calculation including an exchange sacrifice. But the final goal is really very strategic: Conquering the dark squares, especially f6 and f4. White is winning.</p>
  
  <p>Incidentally this is the big difference between computer chess and human chess: For a computer every move is a tactical move. Every move is justified by the calculation of variations. For humans this is a gradual thing and if you are looking for purely tactical moves you should focus on combinations with a very clear result.</p>
  
  <p>If you want only a crude distinction I would propose to let an engine calculate a few moves: If a move is only viable after a certain search depth, you can call it tactical. Every move viable even at very low ply would be strategic/positional.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-19T18:16:44.603Z
Answers.Text: I tried exactly you propose. I used Arena 3.5, with StockFish 6-64, with 16 ply depth and Multi-PV nodes set to 24. The first move calculated was g4. But the next move for white was e6 instead of Rg1. Sorry for the silly next questions:1)  your goal in the example was to open a g-file? 2) f6 was not parcially controlled by e5?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Luis Bueno
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-20T07:28:24.700Z
Answers.Text: It is possible that ply 16 just isn't deep enough. Shredder on my old laptop wasn't able to find the idea at all. The idea isn't to open the g-line. The idea is to attack the knight with the rook, forcing g6 and than take it, which makes it possible to put a knight on f6 sooner or later. After 1.g4 fxg3 e.P. 2.hxg3 for example the g-line isn't open, but the end result will be the same.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-19T13:43:11.643Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-19T13:43:11.643Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.Body: <p>I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question. I've heard the argument that all moves are ultimately tactical - chess engines, which today play better chess than any human, mainly rely on tactical considerations via hard calculation for evaluating moves. (Yes I know they also have positional characteristics built in but these are typically rather primitive).</p>
  
  <p>Humans play chess differently from modern computers though - we rely more on pattern recognition than raw calculation power. Perhaps one workable definition of a strategic move is one where we apply a move based on a memorized pattern without having a clear material pay-off. </p>
  
  <p>For example, I tend to have good results if I manage to get a knight on protected outpost in my enemy's territory, especially behind the flanking pawns. By no means is this a hard rule, but whenever my opponent advances his pawns aggressively I try to look for these kind of squares. Similarly it always seems like tactical opportunities present themselves whenever I have a rook (or even better, a double rook) on an open file.</p>
  
  <p>I'm sure many would disagree - perhaps getting your knight on a good square is but a tactical consideration after all.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-08-19T14:44:22.787Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-08-19T14:52:51.770Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2015-08-19T14:52:51.770Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: firtydank
Body: <p>I am new here, and I am doing research for academic purposes. I am looking for examples of positions where I can distinguish a strategic move from a tactical move.</p>
  
  <p>Can somebody give me examples of positions and next moves where the next move is </p>
  
  <p>a) a strategic move</p>
  
  <p>b) a tactical move</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-18T20:28:09.027Z
Comments.Text: Your english is not correct. Do you mean **distinguish** a strategic move from a tactical move? Or do you mean something else?
Comments.UserDisplayName: NoseKnowsAll
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-19T07:28:57.607Z
Comments.Text: If you describe your research a bit, you'll probably get better answers.
Comments.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-08-19T12:20:58.047Z
Comments.Text: I'm also pretty sure you can find such examples by using the search box by using the tags you've used in your own question. :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Tomislav Dyulgerov
Tags: <strategy><tactics>
Title: How to distinct a strategical move from a tactical move?
ThreadText: # How to distinct a strategical move from a tactical move?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-18)
  
  I am new here, and I am doing research for academic purposes. I am looking for examples of positions where I can distinguish a strategic move from a tactical move.
  
  Can somebody give me examples of positions and next moves where the next move is
  
  a) a strategic move
  
  b) a tactical move
  
  **Tags:** strategy, tactics
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Your english is not correct. Do you mean **distinguish** a strategic move from a tactical move? Or do you mean something else?  
  > **username_2**: If you describe your research a bit, you'll probably get better answers.  
  > **username_3**: I'm also pretty sure you can find such examples by using the search box by using the tags you've used in your own question. :)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2015-08-19. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  The difference between a tactical or a strategic/positional move lies in its justification. Almost all good moves have a positional and a tactical justification, otherwise they may be tactical or positional mistakes. The exception, of course, are moves that lead to mate or a big material advantage, those could probably be called purely tactical moves.
  
  Which justification is more important to you depends on your abilities and your style. If the tactical justification of a move is obvious to you, it might seem like a purely positional move. On the other hand if a move has a deep strategic idea, but requires complicated calculation, you may regard it as a tactical move. I'll give you an example:
  
  ```
  [Title "White to move"]
  [StartFlipped "0"]
  [fen "rnb1kb1r/pp3ppp/2p1q3/4P2n/4Np2/5N2/PPP1Q1PP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 1 10"]
  
  1.g4 Qxg4 2.Rg1 Qe6 3.Rg5 g6 4.Rxh5
  
  ```
  
  g4 may strike you as a very tactical move: It is a pawn sacrifice and its justification involves a lot of calculation including an exchange sacrifice. But the final goal is really very strategic: Conquering the dark squares, especially f6 and f4. White is winning.
  
  Incidentally this is the big difference between computer chess and human chess: For a computer every move is a tactical move. Every move is justified by the calculation of variations. For humans this is a gradual thing and if you are looking for purely tactical moves you should focus on combinations with a very clear result.
  
  If you want only a crude distinction I would propose to let an engine calculate a few moves: If a move is only viable after a certain search depth, you can call it tactical. Every move viable even at very low ply would be strategic/positional.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I tried exactly you propose. I used Arena 3.5, with StockFish 6-64, with 16 ply depth and Multi-PV nodes set to 24. The first move calculated was g4. But the next move for white was e6 instead of Rg1. Sorry for the silly next questions:1)  your goal in the example was to open a g-file? 2) f6 was not parcially controlled by e5?  
  > **username_2**: It is possible that ply 16 just isn't deep enough. Shredder on my old laptop wasn't able to find the idea at all. The idea isn't to open the g-line. The idea is to attack the knight with the rook, forcing g6 and than take it, which makes it possible to put a knight on f6 sooner or later. After 1.g4 fxg3 e.P. 2.hxg3 for example the g-line isn't open, but the end result will be the same.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2015-08-19. Score: 0
  
  I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question. I've heard the argument that all moves are ultimately tactical - chess engines, which today play better chess than any human, mainly rely on tactical considerations via hard calculation for evaluating moves. (Yes I know they also have positional characteristics built in but these are typically rather primitive).
  
  Humans play chess differently from modern computers though - we rely more on pattern recognition than raw calculation power. Perhaps one workable definition of a strategic move is one where we apply a move based on a memorized pattern without having a clear material pay-off.
  
  For example, I tend to have good results if I manage to get a knight on protected outpost in my enemy's territory, especially behind the flanking pawns. By no means is this a hard rule, but whenever my opponent advances his pawns aggressively I try to look for these kind of squares. Similarly it always seems like tactical opportunities present themselves whenever I have a rook (or even better, a double rook) on an open file.
  
  I'm sure many would disagree - perhaps getting your knight on a good square is but a tactical consideration after all.
  
  
  ---
  
  