i really, really don't like those definitions. they are arbitrary, and they try to set up dichotomies where they need not be.
for example, at my table using ganks and strategy and everything you can do get the drop on the enemies and stack the fight in your favor is absolutely fair game, and that's something you define as CaW. on the other hand, we'd not want to exploit rule loopholes, which you'd define as CaS. Nor could you place us half-way, because halfway would entail a bit of anything, not being strongly stacked on one side of the definition for one aspect, and strongly on the other side for the other aspect.

furthermore, your bias against casual players is evident in the way you describe the CaS scenario as a bunch of bumbling morons.

it would be a much better definition to have "combat as problem solving", where you try to use strategy outside of combat to improve the chances, and "combat as charOP", where you try to optimize your character to be stronger, and "combat as tactics", where you stumble into the fight and then try to use your resources at best to win. and possibly even more axes that i'm not thinking about right now.
then your example of bumbling morons would score very low in all those axes. or they'd just be bad at it.

and you'd also need an entirely new axis for "RAI vs RAW", describing how much you would use the letter of the rules to abuse loopholes. Or a "roleplaying vs RAW" to describe how much your interactions are defined by the result of a diplomacy check and how much by using established elements of the story. Also a "RAW vs homebrew" for the charOP axis: if your wizard is incompetent and does nothing but casting fireballs even when she's level 15, do you show her an incantatrix build and let her retrain, or do you drop a staff increasing her fireball damage in the loot? both have the same purpose and results, but they use very different means.

ultimately, you can't just divide all the various styles of gaming along a line. And you should be especially wary of your own prejudices to avoid grouping the extremes of that line as "the cool guys" and "the dumb guys"