Whomever played Go at least once knew the beginning. Masters from 7 Dan would tell you about the end. Those two perspectives are coming along well as the logic would bring the student at the same table with the master. I never realized that playing Go you can look at the same problem from two perspectives until I run into the writing of Solomon Marcus (Paradigme Universale III Jocul - Editura Paralela 45)! E.g. solving it trough induction as a beginner without experience and making a lot of inferences about the next move to do (i.e. getting lost in the details of local tactics) or better as a master having the move as a necessary step to accomplish the strategy of the game he knew from the beginning.
What makes the difference between the master and the neophyte in business strategy? Should that be just experience? Or is it abduction principle to thank for?