http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Tact...

Nick DeFirmian - ""...one other thing is the GMs superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you're a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. "

One of the main aims has been to highlight the differences in approach between a Grandmaster and a weaker player, and to try and narrow the gap. To some extent this comes down to technical matters - more accurate analysis, superior opening knowledge, better endgame technique and so forth; but in other respects the difference goes deeper and many readers will find that they need to rethink much of their basic attitude to the game. One example of this would be the tremendous emphasis which is placed on the dynamic use of the pieces, if necessary at the expense of the pawn structure, or even of material. This is no mere question of style; it is a characteristic of the games of all the great players. – Peter Griffiths

It is often supposed that, apart from their "extraordinary powers of memory", expert players have phenomenal powers of calculation. The beginner believes that experts can calculate dozens of moves ahead and he will lose to them only because he cannot calculate ahead so far. Yet this is utter nonsense. From my own experience I can say that grandmasters do not do an inordinate amount of calculating. Tests (notably de Groot's experiments) supports me in this claim. If anything, grandmasters often consider fewer alternatives. They tend not to look at as many possible moves as weaker players do. And so, perversely, chess skill often seems to reflect the ability to avoid calculations. It is, in truth, not clear that chess is a game of calculation. Of course there are times when intense calculation is called for, and often the master is better at dealing with these situations than the amateur. No wonder, he has had more practice than the amateur, but all the same his innate calculating ability need not be any greater. Most of the time it is something quite different that is required in chess, something more akin to "understanding" or "insight". – David Norwood

Where a mediocre chess player sees ten moves to continue his game, a master may see only two or three. He discards the others as not of sufficient merit. The further the master progresses in skill and foresight the more he is restricted in his choice of moves. It is very similar in other machees. If a mediocre pianist plays a piece before a musical audience he will imagine that he is able to execute his task in a variety of styles. But for Rosenthal or Paderewski only one way of rendering the piece will exist. The higher the class of the artist, the less is his liberty. – Emanuel Lasker

A friend of mine, who is ~1900 and plays in tournaments pretty often, tells me that when he plays kids and teenagers that are 1500-1800, they are generally all tactics, using e4 and sicillian exclusively. Adults who haven't gotten beyond that level are usually d4 or c4 players who depend on positional play and endgames and avoid tactics like the plague. Obviously, there are lots of exceptions, but these are the trends he sees.

M Makarov vs Kramnik, 1991

Gelfand vs Kramnik, 1993 Slav

Kramnik vs Anand, 1993 Slav, Exchange Variation

Kramnik vs Aleksandrov, 1991 Ragozin Variation