user3774: According to few popular sites, my tactics rating is consistently about 400 points above my game rating (say, 2200 vs 1800).
Of course, partially it could be a fault of the process: when a tactics engine gives you a position, you know that there is some tactics. On the other hand, I almost always find combinations while observing other people play, in real time - and miss quite many while playing myself. It seems that I become too preoccupied with the plan, or something like that.
Any ideas how it can be healed?

user825: My explanation is that the tactical rating has nothing to do with your chess rating.
Chess rating is measured by playing a chess game, not by solving chess puzzles. Those sites offering rating almost always overestimate your ability because:

They don't know how to do it statistically (you really need a PhD statistician to do it properly)
They want to make you happy


user7657: You're right that knowing a problem exists is the first step on the road to the solution, as opposed to a game situation when you aren't always aware that you're at a critical juncture.  You have to treat every game situation initially as if there's a tactic present and convince yourself that there isn't before moving on. 
 I've experienced the same problem that you have of missing tactics in my own game whereas I see them when I observe someone else's game.  As you imply, I think that has something to do with the fact that you're in the middle of some plan in your own game and don't stop to see if there's something else you might have missed.  As Emanuel Lasker once said, "When you see a good move, look for a better one".  Maybe pausing during your game occasionally to look away so that you see the position with fresh eyes when you look back at it might help.  That would be akin to your looking at another game position where you haven't followed the sequence leading up to it and see a tactic, as you say happens. Or maybe consider it parallel to how a computer generates a move, assessing each new position as it occurs.  

user13817: You have to have a strategically better position in order to 'force' tactics. Focus on strategy.
Tactics are how you win games, but Strategy is how you prove that your pieces and pawns are more impressive than your opponent's. Don't just think in terms of 'okay I'm going to play Nd4 to threaten a fork', but instead 'I'm going to play Nd4 to reroute to b3 so that I can push c5 and my knight will be on c5 putting a lot of pressure on critical points b7 and d7. Even if these threats are met, I will have a slight advantage after I bring all my pieces to the center.'

user3872: As you have noted yourself, an important difference between solving tactics and finding tactics during a game is that you know that there is something interesting when solving tactics. There are a couple other important differences.
In a game, it comes down to your ability to discern a critical position from an ordinary one that only requires positional consideration. In long time controls, it is advisable that you treat every position as a tactical puzzle, at least for some amount of time. Of course some positions you know are not critical, but spending a little bit of time checking every move will help you be more tactically aware. And of course, you got to watch out for your opponent's tricks too.
I will ignore the question relating to having a 2200 tactics compared to 1800 elo because the scale may be different between the two and an 1800 rated player could have a range of tactical ability anyways. 

3774: <p>According to few popular sites, my <em>tactics</em> rating is consistently about 400 points above my <em>game</em> rating (say, 2200 vs 1800).</p>

<p>Of course, partially it could be a fault of the process: when a tactics engine gives you a position, you <em>know</em> that there is some tactics. On the other hand, I almost always find combinations while observing other people play, in real time - and miss quite many while playing myself. It seems that I become too preoccupied with the plan, or something like that.</p>

<p>Any ideas how it can be healed?</p>
 825: <p>My explanation is that the tactical rating has nothing to do with your chess rating.</p>

<p>Chess rating is measured by playing a chess game, not by solving chess puzzles. Those sites offering rating almost always overestimate your ability because:</p>

<ul>
<li>They don't know how to do it statistically (you really need a PhD statistician to do it properly)</li>
<li>They want to make you happy</li>
</ul>
 7657: <p>You're right that knowing a problem exists is the first step on the road to the solution, as opposed to a game situation when you aren't always aware that you're at a critical juncture.  You have to treat every game situation initially as if there's a tactic present and convince yourself that there isn't before moving on. 
 I've experienced the same problem that you have of missing tactics in my own game whereas I see them when I observe someone else's game.  As you imply, I think that has something to do with the fact that you're in the middle of some plan in your own game and don't stop to see if there's something else you might have missed.  As Emanuel Lasker once said, "When you see a good move, look for a better one".  Maybe pausing during your game occasionally to look away so that you see the position with fresh eyes when you look back at it might help.  That would be akin to your looking at another game position where you haven't followed the sequence leading up to it and see a tactic, as you say happens. Or maybe consider it parallel to how a computer generates a move, assessing each new position as it occurs.  </p>
 13817: <p>You have to have a strategically better position in order to 'force' tactics. Focus on strategy.</p>

<p>Tactics are how you win games, but Strategy is how you prove that your pieces and pawns are more impressive than your opponent's. Don't just think in terms of 'okay I'm going to play Nd4 to threaten a fork', but instead 'I'm going to play Nd4 to reroute to b3 so that I can push c5 and my knight will be on c5 putting a lot of pressure on critical points b7 and d7. Even if these threats are met, I will have a slight advantage after I bring all my pieces to the center.'</p>
 3872: <p>As you have noted yourself, an important difference between solving tactics and finding tactics during a game is that you know that there is something interesting when solving tactics. There are a couple other important differences.
In a game, it comes down to your ability to discern a critical position from an ordinary one that only requires positional consideration. In long time controls, it is advisable that you <strong>treat every position as a tactical puzzle</strong>, at least for some amount of time. Of course some positions you know are not critical, but spending a little bit of time checking every move will help you be more tactically aware. And of course, you got to watch out for your opponent's tricks too.<br>
I will ignore the question relating to having a 2200 tactics compared to 1800 elo because the scale may be different between the two and an 1800 rated player could have a range of tactical ability anyways. </p>
