Exactly, that's the point I was getting at: so when you see a pattern, how do you approach it? Here's an example: I see multiple patterns but how did you go about solving this mate in 2? (Because only one pattern eventually is relevant.) Personally I couldn't figure it out pattern-wise so I used raw calculating power again.
Exactly, that's the point I was getting at: so when you see a pattern, how do you approach it? Here's an example: I see multiple patterns but how did you go about solving this mate in 2?
Personally I did not think of any patterns but just calculated the most forcing variations (including checks) and as one of these leads to a mate there is no need to think any further. Nothing wrong with that I think. Pattern recognition is no substitute for concrete calculation and especially short forcing variations should almost always be examined.
Given that white is threatening mate you’re down to an extremely limited number of possible moves and likewise a very limited amount of possible follow-ups. So it was just a matter of looking at which one works, which should take a couple of seconds or so.
In an OTB scenario you’d never just be dropped in that position - in something so double edged you’d have to make sure you had something that worked so essentially you’d have ‘solved’ the tactic before it appeared.
@Shakaali & @JamesColeman
That was very helpful thank you.
The background of my question is that I experimented whether I could replace some raw calculations with a pattern approach. Because that's the promise of patterns more or less, wasn't it? After 300 of selected mate puzzles (I could select them on a different website), I still had to resort to simply trying out moves, despite the patterns being easy enough.
The background of my question is that I experimented whether I could replace some raw calculations with a pattern approach. Because that's the promise of patterns more or less, wasn't it? After 300 of selected mate puzzles (I could select them on a different website), I still had to resort to simply trying out moves, despite the patterns being easy enough.
Knowing common patterns can sometimes help us to find the correct idea faster or to find ideas that we would not recognize at all otherwise but it's no substitute for concrete calculation. Also 300 puzzles is not that much.
Well I've played chess for a long time and I'm rated above 2000 (OTB) and I've never heard of dovetails and swallowtaills so make what you will of that...
Seriously speaking though, we practice tactics in order to easily recognize common patterns during our calculations in an actual game. Pattern recognition is mostly an intuitive process instead of something you have to think consciously. It just takes a lot playing and lot of tactis exercises to get enough repetitions. I'm afraid there are no shortcuts.