He meant that he would seek certain types of positions based on knowing the weaknesses of individual opponents. For an example: if I was playing a real tactical player who used his queen like a pit bull, and I went into a line which forced the exchange of queens, I would be playing the man, not the board (assuming that the queen exchange wasn't the strongest continuation).

Well, I can't send a personal response to everyone, but for all of you out there who just learned the moves, the next step to learn is some simple tactics and mating positions. Tactics are like punches in boxing, but instead of jabs and uppercuts, we have things like FORKS and SKEWERS (sounds more like a barbeque than a chess game, doesn't it?) All tactics are based on a double threat. For instance, Diagram 1 below shows a couple forks. 1 b4 attacks both the knight and the rook, Black can move one, but must lose the other. On the right side of the diagram, 1 Rh4+ forks the king and bishop, forcing the king to move out of check and then white wins the bishop. Diagram 2 is an example of a skewer. 1. Re1+ wins the queen, as the black rook indirectly attacks it. Diagram 3 shows a pin...a common tactic. 1. Bg5 wins the black queen because she is unable to move without exposing the black king to check. Diagram 4 is a tactic called "removing the defender" 1. Bxc6+ "removes the defender" of the black rook, which white will pick off on his next move. Diagram 5 shows a "discovery".....the white bishop moves 1 Bxg7+ which wins the queen. There are lots more tactical ideas, however most of them use the above in combination with each other, hence the term "combinations". Again, to use the example from boxing: combinations are like a flurry of punches (or threats), delivered at once rather than one at a time.