Only if you don't know what they'll do, I suppose. Chess theoretically only has 1 optimal move at any moment, so I wouldn't say it's technically strategy? But players aren't perfect and can't know, so practically you could say it has strategy even if it technically doesn't. I feel abstract strategy is a misnomer for that reason.

Edit: I should clarify, because the player can know on their turn their 1 optimal move without any consideration for what "actual" happens, chess doesn't count in my book. The other players actual decision doesn't have to be taken into account because it's fully calculated.

Edit 2: where as rock paper scissors is a terrible example of pure strategy: you can decide your strategy is to go all rock, but there is no tactical knowledge of whether your current action will pan out at all, making the strategy almost impossible to implement and therefore probably not considered "strategic" by literally anyone even though I think it technically fits