Coming across the theory of Steinitz from [0] has made me look at chess in a different manner: at most levels of play rather than it being tactics or strategy, it is more about avoiding mistakes and waiting, prolonging play till oponenent eventually makes a mistake. My experience in over board play has been in concurrence with that view, one plays carefully parrying the opponent's move, while waiting till they make an inevitable mistake, then one can quickly consolidate the advantage in materials, mostly by cancelling out many pieces and then end game can start, which can be somewhat easily learned compared to other parts of the game.
This is the text of the Theory from [0]:
At the beginning of the game the forces stand in equilibrium.
Correct play on both sides maintains this equilibrium and leads to a drawn game.
Therefore a player can win only as a consequence of an error made by the opponent. (There is no such thing as a winning move.)
As long as the equilibrium is maintained, an attack, however skilful, cannot succeed against correct defence. Such a defence will eventually necessitate the withdrawal and regrouping of the attacking pieces and te attacker will then inevitably suffer disadvantage.
Therefore a player should not attack until he already has an advantage, caused by the opponent's error, that justifies the decision to attack.
At the beginning of the game a player should not at once seek to attack. Instead, a player should seek to disturb the equilibrium in his favour by inducing the opponent to make an error - a preliminary before attacking.
When a sufficient advantage has been obtained, a player must attack or the advantage will be dissipated."
[0] http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/theory-steinitz