dodgernation wrote:
How do you look for forcing moves now?
I did a lesson on this a few nights ago and realize that I don't look for forcing moves at all.
When do you begin visualizing forcing moves?
Sort:
Veganomnomnom wrote:
Every single move, you should be looking at forcing moves. Why? It's easy, and can change the game. Generally, a missed forcing move is the reason for most tactical failures.
Should I be looking for forcing moves for myself only or should I also consider my opponents forcing moves? It seems a lot of work for the latter.
dodgernation wrote:
Riv4L wrote:
dodgernation wrote:
How do you look for forcing moves now?
I did a lesson on this a few nights ago and realize that I don't look for forcing moves at all.
Forcing movces the following:
Check
Capture
Threat
You should look for forcing moves first!
Then you need to make sure your pieces are safe, or need to be made safe.
Should I go about it the same way when I analyze pro games?
When? I'd say somewhere around 1400!
Benzodiazepine wrote:
When? I'd say somewhere around 1400!
Well, I mean during the game. Should I begin during the mid game or end game or the opening?
alexsmohr wrote:
If your opponent has a forced mate, you should probably look at that.
But how would I know he has it?
Guys, he's asking about analysis, not games.
@Riv4l
It may seem like a lot of work, but it would be good practice to do it for both sides. But I guess I'm not sure what you're planning. Forcing but really terrible moves like sacrificing your queen can be safely ignored IMO. The trick to not ignoring the good sacrifices is knowing some patterns from e.g. solving tactical puzzles and making general observations like one side has a lot of undefended pieces, an open king, or few defenders around their king.
Riv4L : Ello ! For progress at chess, i watch gm game.
for exemple : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPm9k6ul9EI
When do you begin visualizing forcing moves?
When you see them
alexsmohr wrote:
I think if a queen sac leads to a forced mate that you should probably look at that one as well. Combinational vision is partly a function of experience I think. Solving tactical problems taken from real games is one way to build up your knowledge of the typical motifs.
Sometimes a sacrifice can spell the difference between mating and being mated.
Not sure if you're responding to me, but yeah, in the situations I listed (and as in your diagram) not only is it a good idea, but more or less necessary to calculate all the forcing moves.
I read the title, but not your OP, and I feel like I can make a useful comment.
In fact I'm going to comment more than once.
WHOOPS i meant black is winning in this
TheElementalMaster wrote:
WHOOPS i meant black is winning in this
how is white winning if he's down a piece?
Veganomnomnom wrote:
100% of the time, on your move for yourself and your opponent, you should consider every forcing move. There aren't usually that many, and often they just lose, but they should not escape your consideration. You'll get to the point where you can consider all of the 'bad' forcing moves in under a second, and then consider the reasonable-looking ones in detail.
How do you know he has it? Most mating sequences start with a check. How many legal checks are there in #10 above? I count 6, 4 of which are obviously bad, and 2 (Qg4+ and Qg6+) that should be considered in detail. The mating pattern after ...Qg4+ Kf1 Qh3+(the only reasonable check in the position) Rxh3 Bxh3# is pretty common - when a Knight is two squares away from the King, there are a lot of mates to look at.
It's important to note that Qg6+ also leads to mate: if Kxf3 Qg4 mate, and if Kf1 Bh3+ Rxh3 Qg1 mate.
I realized when I look for forcing checks and captures, I solve my puzzles much more at ease. It's very strange how now I realize this after playing chess for 2 years.
Riv4L wrote:
TheElementalMaster wrote:
WHOOPS i meant black is winning in this
how is white winning if he's down a piece?
I guess you frogot to read my edit...
Veganomnomnom wrote:
Every single move, you should be looking at forcing moves. Why? It's easy, and can change the game. Generally, a missed forcing move is the reason for most tactical failures.
This sentence changed the way how I think about chess and that says a lot.
shell_knight wrote:
alexsmohr wrote:
I think if a queen sac leads to a forced mate that you should probably look at that one as well. Combinational vision is partly a function of experience I think. Solving tactical problems taken from real games is one way to build up your knowledge of the typical motifs.
Sometimes a sacrifice can spell the difference between mating and being mated.
Not sure if you're responding to me, but yeah, in the situations I listed (and as in your diagram) not only is it a good idea, but more or less necessary to calculate all the forcing moves.
but the problem is... what if your opponent is doing the same thing, he's calculating all forcing moves? How would you outsmart someone who uses the same calculatiing technique?
Riv4L wrote:
shell_knight wrote:
alexsmohr wrote:
I think if a queen sac leads to a forced mate that you should probably look at that one as well. Combinational vision is partly a function of experience I think. Solving tactical problems taken from real games is one way to build up your knowledge of the typical motifs.
Sometimes a sacrifice can spell the difference between mating and being mated.
Not sure if you're responding to me, but yeah, in the situations I listed (and as in your diagram) not only is it a good idea, but more or less necessary to calculate all the forcing moves.
but the problem is... what if your opponent is doing the same thing, he's calculating all forcing moves? How would you outsmart someone who uses the same calculatiing technique?
Calculating forcing moves lets you find the opportunities already available in the position. You don't "outsmart" (I'll read it as outplay) your opponent by calculating forcing moves. To outplay (more or less) means you've generated tactical opportunities before the moment of calculating a winning combination happens.
Between two strong players, in the middle of the game the eventual loser may see and understand everything the eventual winner is doing, but if the eventual winner's position is good and allows these things to happen then there's nothing the eventual loser can do about it but put up a tough defense and wait for a mistake.
Fiveofswords wrote:
look at every single one for both sides. You dont need to go into huge depth, but at least note all the responses for each forcing move. If anything looks interesting you can examine further.
Honestly, I had no idea chess was that simple. When I play, I really don't look for checks or captures. I just subconsciously play without being aware of what I'm doing.
I'm going to take a practical approach towards analyzing all games not just my games, but every game by looking for the most forcing moves for every different position during a game.
Should I do this for both sides or just my side and when do I do this?