<There is no contradiction, for the additional aim is one resorted to if the opponent chooses a line that makes the second aim better than the first.>

So, you say that the two strategies do NOT (the choice of capital letters is yours) have the same aim, but then you actually say that they do have the same aim for a while, until you switch aim. There’s the contradiction for you.

<Playing to make the transference possible has the aim of playing the transference possible if the opponent invites it,BUT ALSO THE AIM OF PLAYING FOR ANOTHER ATTACK IF THE OPPONENT INVITES THE SECOND ATTACK.>

Your choice of capital letters here makes me assume (wrongly?) that you think my main problem is understanding that you can switch plans in chess, or operate with several possible plans. I think it’s fair to say that I do know about such things. The problem for me is actually your logic and your way of reasoning. In particular, I have problems with your ‘strategy’ and your ‘aim', which seems to be very fuzzy concepts.

<This flexibility is what makes " playing to make the transferrence possible" different from merely "transferring". Playing to make the transferrence possible plays to make other attacks possible as well, which transferring by itself does not. That is why the aim of the former is not necessarily the same as the aim of the latter.>

I note that you suddenly say ‘not necessarily’ instead of ‘NOT’. (If you don’t understand why this makes all the difference, we might have found your problem.)

It's interesting to compare the above with your first reply, in which you explained that the difference between “playing to make the transference possible” and “transferring” was that an immediate transfer might be refuted:

<The difference is that if Fischer does not first play so as to make the transference possible, but goes ahead when the transference isn't yet possible, the transference becomes then an unsound attack, and Black may refute it.>

So, a lot less abstract. This might be as an important difference as 'flexibility', right? Or have you changed your mind?

<It is like the difference between saying " I will get ready to make possible an attack in the north or in the south depending on your deployment" and " I will attack in the north." Clearly the two do not have the same aim.>

They do have an attack in the North in common, as you’ve written yourself. So they might have the same aim, depending on how things turn out. (If we can call the attack an ‘aim’- as you do- is another question. I try to use the word 'aim' as you do here, which admittedly isn't easy.)

In passing, we note that you’ve fallen back on using the word ‘not’, here strengthened by the word ‘clearly’, in contrast to 'not necessarily' above. You are not consistent, not even within the same post.

I suspect that you are confusing means and aims a bit, and that’s why I started this argument in the first place. (It’s not such a bad error, you might even have a future in politics.)

It's interesting to compare the above with your first reply, in which you explained that the difference between “playing to make the transference possible” and “transferring” was that an immediate transfer might be refuted:> In the event that Black does not make a change of aim advisable, the aim of the more flexible strategy becomes the same as the aim of a more rigid one. The words "not necessarily are more correct than not for this reason <So, a lot less abstract. This might be as an important difference as 'flexibility', right? Or have you changed your mind?> A lot less abstract to help make it clearer
<They do have an attack in the North in common, as you’ve written yourself. So they might have the same aim, depending on how things turn out. (If we can call the attack an ‘aim’- as you do- is another question. I try to use the word 'aim' as you do here, which admittedly isn't easy.) > One can aim to begin an attack

<In passing, we note that you’ve fallen back on using the word ‘not’, here strengthened by the word ‘clearly’, in contrast to 'not necessarily' above. You are not consistent, not even within the same post.> Quite consistent when both are understood correctly. If a strategy A does "not necessarily" have the same aim as strategy B, its aim then is "not" the same as that of B.

<I suspect that you are confusing means and aims a bit, and that’s why I started this argument in the first place. (It’s not such a bad error, you might even have a future in politics.)

One point though: It is clear from what you write that you think that I all the time has understood what you are trying to say and that I only keep posting to annoy you. This is not true. I genuinely have problems with navigating your lines of reasoning, in the posts below as well as elsewhere.

I’ll tell you then how I see it: Chess is very logical and concrete game. When we analyse chess we use variations. Strategies in chess, it may be concepts such as the pair of bishops, open c-file or whatever, are ultimately short cuts to variations, or an approximation of the most conceivable turn of events. They might certainly be useful for the practical player as some general guideline, but exceptions from all these ‘rules’ abound and as you should know, playing chess only using strategic ideas will get you absolutely nowhere if you don’t also calculate variations. Or in other words, having a pawn majority or the pair of bishops or the better pawn structure is useless if acquiring them means that you drop your queen to a three move combination.

Upon seeing postings such as yours, which very often have long wordy strategic discussions and very little in terms of concrete variations to illustrate said strategies, I always start to wonder if the author could tell me more about the logic and definitions that underlie his reasoning. In this case, for example, how do you define “aim” when applied to chess?