No. There are a lot of misconceptions about the refuelling era borne out of nostalgia.
One of those is that it made the racing more strategic. It didn't. If anything it did the opposite. Each GP had an optimal strategy, two stops or three stops, whatever. This optimal strategy was what the majority of the teams at the front stuck to. It was only in the midfield where you would get teams try and sneak a point or two by one stopping. During refuelling you had to run to your target scheduling lap. This is because the main advantage of having a light car would only come at the end of your stint, so stopping earlier means you carry an extra weight penalty with no gain later in the stint.
I remember when Schumacher was battling with Williams or McLaren in late 1990s, they often had alternative strategies. 1 stops vs 2 stops. So it was not "everyone choosing the same strategy".
Strategy was chosen based on how it played to the car's strength, but also on potential traffic situation. Does a car perform more competitively at low or high fuel load? A bit like tyres - can a car (Lotus 2012/13) make them last longer than others or not? So there WAS strategy in it.
Of course Schumacher/Ferrari-Benetton also had to take risks with strategy, because he often had an inferior car and had to try to overcome rivals by trying something else.
The variety of fuel strategies was ruined, when they started qualifying on race fuel (from 2003 onwards), because for a good grid slot you needed to qualify on a relatively light fuel load, which meant most pitted pretty early and after that it was harder to be flexible with strategies any more.
But still, even then we had some interesting cases. Ferrari qualified heavy for the 2004 Canadian GP, they were 6th and 7th on the grid. Then Schumacher won the race by pitting less than others. Also memorably he won the French GP by pitting 4 times, while direct rival Alonso pitted 3!
Edited by sopa, 08 April 2015 - 12:41.