2

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

  • 2
    Your english is not correct. Do you mean distinguish a strategic move from a tactical move? Or do you mean something else? – NoseKnowsAll Aug 18 '15 at 20:28
  • If you describe your research a bit, you'll probably get better answers. – BlindKungFuMaster Aug 19 '15 at 7:28
  • 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. :) – Tomislav Dyulgerov Aug 19 '15 at 12:20
1

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.

  • 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? – Luis Bueno Aug 19 '15 at 18:16
  • 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. – BlindKungFuMaster Aug 20 '15 at 7:28
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.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.