Quite often you can hear or read that tactics are the means to implement strategical plans and in this have to be subjected to the great big overall strategy.
While this is certainly true, it is hard to evaluate strategic positions - especially those typical for the modern dynamic apptoach to chess - without calculating many forcing lines. Also, for fulfilling your positional plans you will often need excellent calculation skills.
So yes, as the correct calculation of variations is the single most important tool of a strong chess player (even a positionally biased one!), I think you can go a long way by improving this skill by solving puzzles and playing lots of games.
Just wondering about the method of approaching chess mastery set forth by the Polgar sisters (especially Susan). If you look at the three highest-profile books authored by either Susan or her father, you notice that they are almost entirely about tactics:
A World Champion's Guide to Chess:
Chess Tactics for Champions:
Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games
The first of these, which you might expect to contain chapters on the opening, the middlegame, and basic strategy, is almost entirely an (excellent) book of tactical puzzles. There is admittedly a brief introduction to the rules and how the pieces move, and a section on basic endgames, but the book only contains a small section of general advice on the middlegame, strategy and chess "etiquette". And nothing on the opening. The meat and potatoes of the book is definitely about tactics.
The other two books are even more about tactical puzzles. "Chess: 5334 Problems" is co-authored by the Polgar sisters' father and I believe is also meant to offer the same approach to learning that the father used with his daughters.
In other words, are we meant to understand (and I believe we are) that chess mastery (as personified in the Polgar sisters) can be achieved almost entirely by solving tactical puzzles? Because that's largely what these books seem to indicate. Can one really become a Master or even a GM by following this Polgar approach?
All beginning players are told to study tactics, tactics, tactics (and endgames) in order to progress as rapidly as possible. But can one become a Master or a GM (as Susan and Judit did) mainly off the back of sound tactical and endgame play? Surely for someone to reach Master level they also need a deep understanding of openings and middlegame strategy, amongst other things. Otherwise they will be hopelessly outplayed. And we know that tactical opportunities best present themselves when the player has played a positionally/strategically good game. So surely a deep understanding of positional play also needs to underpin the tactical acumen if one is to develop far in chess.
The books seem to suggest that the sisters spent much of their study time solving tactical puzzles generated by their father. So the question is where did their GM-level knowledge of positional play and openings come from? Where they just naturally gifted in those aspects? Are the Polgar books then to some extent misleading their readers?
Will be interesting to hear what others think of the Polgar approach :-)