orangehonda:

While I am not a Master, I certainly am not the kind of undeveloped player you're thinking of.  I think you're missing the point.

I'd imagine that the vast majority of chess players look at tactics before strategy in general, whether they're a GM or a beginner.  Don't forget that even GMs occasionally make tactical blunders.

Besides, I would say that, in order to understand the strategic situation on the board, you must first understand the tactical situation on the board.  It's no good looking at your queenside space advantage and thinking of advancing pawns there when you aren't even aware of the individual moves (tactics) available to both sides.  I think that strategic thinking is meaningless without a tactical understanding of the position in question.

I think it's very easy to fall into th are trap of trying to prioritize tactics opositionally from strategy.  This is not the case.  Tactics and Strategy are two aspects of an integrated activity.  Tactics is execution, Strategy is long term planning.  Since Chess is a game symbolizing the battlefield lets use that metaphor:  it would be absurd for a general to think in terms planning the campaign but paying no attention to things like supply line and communications.  On the other hand to focus on the supply chain without giving a thought as to where those supplies aught to go is just as absurd.  Of course immediate positional play is an imporatnt factor.  But divorced from stragegic insight?  I think for example in my own play, I have little concept of the strategic value of the position irrespective of material advantage.  Being able to see the deeper structure of the game definately is the hallmark of a more accomplished player than myself.