I know what you mean. So often I'm developing my pieces to decent squares, I think, gaining central control, doing all the principled things, but nothing really comes of it. I've certainly found that complications can aid things, but I also need to have a good position. I find myself, as I'm not treating every move like tactics trainer, to sometimes make woeful oversights in that regard, even if my absolute ability to figure out the tactics of a position is quite good. I mean I'm playing a game right now where my opponent has been tactically walking all over me, I even hanged a piece (well, I had to stop mate on the kingside, so I can forgive myself for not even looking at that piece, over on the queenside, which couldn't aid anything - and my opponent had already sacrificed one).
Well, paused to actually concentrate on that game. It fizzled out to an ending. I had a knight, he had a bishop. He had four pawns, I had three, but he had doubled pawns. I'm quite happy with the play here...I dunno how accurate I was (I probably could have used opportunities to push pawns earlier rather than dilly dallying) but it's a nice illustration of the knight's limitations. Made up for the middlegame (which I was probably losing by force, as usual I moved too fast, I'll check with the engine)
https://www.chess.com/live/game/1711767114edit: lol in hindsight I was worried about far too much on the kingside. I was up over -2, then hanging my knight indeed puts white easily winning (+3). I really should have thought more. Got too scared by the way the position looked and ignored the actual mechanics and particulars of the position.
double edit: lmao computer announces mate in 10 on move 24 for white. But he didn't find it, and I cannot be blamed for my opponent's failings.