If the players exposed themselves to simple tactics such as forks and pins, or if they didn't see all the possibilities when their opponent tried to trick them into ignoring an attack, then they wouldn't be world-class players.
Don't worry, it takes many, many years of intense study to even try to get to that level. For 99% of the chess-playing world, the tactical stuff rules the day.
When I study the GM games it seems as though there are no tactics involved. Just a bunch of melee of attacks which rapidly leads to the endgame. I never see any forks or pins or really anything tactical other than the tactics involved with gaining a better position for the endgame. Every now and then I'll come across some sinister trap,but for the most part, GM games are pretty boring and materialistic to me.
Keep in mind I play correspondence chess - but my question is, these games that I'm studying, would it be safe to assume the melee type play is brought upon by time constraints imposed on the players, or is this just world class chess? Midgame is what I love most about chess. - at my level, it's where I win most ofmy games. The most appealing part of the game to me is feigning one attack, and surprising my opponent with another. I just don't see this is GM games. Maybe I'm not experienced enough to appreciate how they play them, but at the same time I'm a little worried that, to become a better player, I'll have to give into "having better position at endgame" rather than winning outright in the midgame. Any thoughts on this matter?