The difference between winning tactic and winning strategy In the topological game, what is the difference between winning tactic and winning strategy? Why the author (in this paper: LEFT SEPARATED SPACES 
WITH POINT-COUNTABLE BASES) said that, the first implies the second?
 A: The usual definition is that a tactic only looks at the last move of the opponent, while a strategy looks at the whole prior sequence of moves. Marion Scheepers has several interesting results where he considers $k$-tactics for $k\in\mathbb N$. Here, one looks at the last $k$ moves of the opponent, so a tactic is a $1$-tactic.
Of course, if a tactic is winning, then it automatically gives us a winning strategy, where we have at our disposal all prior moves of the opponent but, in fact, only make use of the last one.

An interesting example of the difference between strategies and $k$-tactics is the countable-finite game. Here, we start with a set $X$, player I plays countable subsets, player II plays finite subsets. Say that in move $n$, player I moves $C_n$ and player II moves $F_n$. We require that $C_n\subset C_{n+1}$. At the end, player II wins if they "catch up": $\bigcup_n F_n\supseteq \bigcup_n C_n$. For which $X$ does player II have a winning $2$-tactic? It is easy to see that II has a winning strategy. 
Marion has several papers on the subject. See for example

Marion Scheepers. Concerning $n$-tactics in the countable-finite game. J. Symbolic Logic 56 (1991), no. 3, 786–794. MR1129143 (92m:03075).

