Strategic concepts and mediating concepts

Charles

This is a revised and expanded version of something I posted to rec.games.go, on 2000-12-21.

Questions about strategy are natural, and beginners shouldn't be discouraged from making them. It is however not that easy to give straight answers.

I wanted to propose something, namely that what pass for "strategic concepts" are often enough not that, but actually mediating concepts, or indications of where to look for those. That is, we could do with a more thoughtful examination of the division

Strategy = Plan versus Tactics = Implementation

The division between tactics and strategy may initially seem very clearcut, as in the typical story "I had a perfectly good plan and then my opponent did something complicated ..."

• An idea like Overconcentrated shape tells you something serious about the relation: tactical solidity isn't a strategic end in itself.

Some mediation between solidity and efficiency is quite basic. You can decide 'hold on' rather than 'let go' in a situation, but even if you are proved correct, the result may be unsatisfactory because too tight.

• Aji speaks to tactical chances that have to wait for (strategic or other) maturity.

You can give the name timing to the mediation between 'too early' and 'too late'; but of course that's not an explanation.

There would seem to be quite a lot more in this vein.

I even think such a prime concept as thickness as ought normally to be seen as mediating between, for example, "direction of play" and tactics (more accurately, their absence or bias against one side).