1)
An Instruction Set Architecture defines the interface that is used to program a processor. Note that this does not define the implementation. When a CPU designer goes about designing the processor, they may implement this ISA in various different ways. In fact, the various Intel processors have each implemented the x86 ISA in many different ways over the years.

Computer architecture is generally delineated around an ISA. Computer microarchitecture is very specific to a particular processor. For example, a Pentium vs. a Pentium Pro implement for the most part the exact same instruction set, i.e. the x86 ISA. But their microarchitectures were drastically different. (The Pro was out of order for example).

One of the methods often used to get pipelines to be very fast is to reduce the more complex instructions to microinstructions. These are used by the “back-end” of the processor, which is the part that has one or more execution units.

Therefore, the point of the two types of instructions ISA instruction vs. microinstruction has to do with whether you are discussing the ISA, i.e. the interface, or the microarchitecture, i.e. the implementation.

2)
As far as your second question, Tanenbaum was almost certainly talking about ISA level instructions because his books are about computer architecture. Microarchitecture is much more hardware designer centric. See John Stokes, “Inside the Machine” if you are interested in microarchitecture.

3)
For most real processors, fetch-decode-execute is entirely too simplistic to describe what really goes on inside. However, from an ISA point of view, it defines a good abstraction to the steps an instruction takes.

The instruction fetch is done by dedicated hardware, so it is different from the load instruction data fetch. Usually there are actually two bus masters, instruction and data. These buses often have their own caches. In some cases, i.e. harvard architectures, the data and instruction memory maps are entirely separate.

4)
RISC vs. CISC is entirely regarding the ISA, i.e. the interface. However, the RISC mindset of using a reduced instruction set is very much to simplify the microarchitecture. The effect is that the microarchitectural instructions are generally exactly the same as the ISA instructions in RISC processors.

1. I agree with your interpretation. And if an ISA instruction ties to a single microinstruction, I would still call the instruction an instruction and the microinstruction a microinstruction, even knowing that there’s a 1:1 tie. There are all sorts of chip architectures, but I imagine that internally there are differences in naming and things are kept separate that way, e.g. a chip designer might say something like “the MOV instruction implementation consists solely of invocation of the _mov microinstruction”. I’m making up my own naming convention here; the point is that there are still two different entities here, even if they happen to correspond 1:1.

2. Those operations would be instructions; whether they are implemented as single microinstructions or as microprograms, they are still conceptually instructions.

3. Those operations would also be instructions; the CPU will never have to “fetch” a
   microinstruction. It already has the correct microinstructions necessary for any given instruction it fetches burned into its circuit design.

4. In a pure RISC architecture, there is no instruction / microinstruction distinction.
   Each instruction is basically a single microinstruction, although the term
   “microinstruction” would not typically by used (since it’s not necessary to draw such a distinction). When talking about a CISC device, I’d imagine that people would talk mostly about instructions; if they’re referring to the internal microinstructions (which are less likely to be a topic of everyday discussion, in my experience), then people will explicitly say “microinstruction”.