Complexities

I'm thinking about complexities, and I wonder if the learning strategy I am about to describe is a good one or not?!

I just got done looking over a game of the warm up championships between India and Israel. I was looking at the complexities of their play and decided that I would study how black came to lose a pawn to a rook. . . Typically I have always studied winning positions and the play involved, but this time I looked at just how it was that black achieved the loss of the pawn. 

This really could be part of the learning process, and profitable to boot! I'm thinking that if I could study a portion of the game like this, and then compliment it with a complexity of the same winning strategy, I (or we) could learn a new insight that pushes the brain into forming larger strategies!! Ha-ha 

Often it comes down to double attack - if he lost the pawn,

there was likely a bigger threat he had to meet simultaneously.

This is assuming you have already committed the winning tactic to memory. Picture a person who doesn't play the game but studies it in depth. How much differently would they see the entire game, and from what perspective?

We know that people see things differently and even have unique styles. What I am proposing is a greater understanding of the game by understanding all aspects that make up the game, and not just winning tactics. Ever notice how the novice sees different positions when they watch a game being played from the side of the board? Studying the entire game, and not just what the individual sees as important, can increase the overall understanding of chess and its function.

I think the human mind is great in its ability to use its logical functions to adapt to immediate play. Knowlege is power ;)