There are tons of tactics that can be done with CCT and I do think it is a very good idea to always check for CCT. I do not do it well enough myself and this is a good reminder for me too. Thanks for the reminder. If you are under time pressure, you will not always be able to do this. But often, I think that you can.
To CCT or not to CCT
Sort:
AtaChess68 wrote:
I loose quite some games because I miss a check of my opponent. I tried to include a checks, captures, threats (CCT) check in my routine but didn’t succeed till now.
- does my opponent have checks. captures and threats?
- do I have CCT’s?
- does my opponent have CCT’s after I have played my candidate move?
In reality I do this ‘more or less’. A systematic approach doesn’t stick. I tried but it doesn’t work, maybe because it is too time consuming for my 30|0 games. And not efficient enough: doing this every move is repeating a lot of the same thinking. That doesn’t feel useful.
Here is a good example. GG opponent.
Possible solution:
Till now I try to include this routine straight after my opponents move (‘ok, Atachess, take your time. Do the CCT’s). But that doesn’t work, a few moves later it is gone. But what if I simplify and time differently: not straight after my opponents move but just before I move … I check if my opponent has checks.
I noticed quite some GM’s hovering with their hand over the board as if they are gonna move - Giri is a good example. And then when you think they will move, they hang, often retreat their hand, think again for a while… maybe that is what they do: a final check: does my opponent have forcing moves.
In general, the CCT idea is just a general rule of thumb which should be judiciously applied in games. I feel that it's a good rule to always be aware of the entire board dynamics, but if CCT is applied too far, a player could build up the habit of being overly cautious in positions and this is in itself somewhat detrimental.
Knowing whether a position contains tactics or positional ideas requires deep experience within ourselves. Good players are usually able to anticipate threats before they come. For me personally, I would sometimes imagine what could possibly happen if my opponents could make two or three moves in a row without me making a move at all, to see what dangers could possibly arise. If I feel that a position feels fishy or particularly worthy of my thought, I would slow down my train of thoughts to analyse a position more deeply.
I suggest that you perform a general CCT on a regular basis, say once every five moves, for efficiency. You would not wish to spend too much time performing CCT, but at the same time the dynamics of a game changes very quickly within the span of a few moves. But thereafter, you could perform a more in-depth CCT in positions which you feel the need to (for example, in complex positions or one where a rook could be in danger).
Say for example, in a 40-move game, you could perform a total of eight general CCTs and one or two more detailed ones.
On a different but related note, there is actually a dark overlap between making good moves and paying attention to opponents' potential moves. It happens often that we pay attention to a particular sequence deep down the line without realising that our opponents have an alternative response or without realising that our opponents' moves are checks. Just after we analyse a deep sequence, we must do a final alternative move check just to make sure our efforts of studying a particular line do not go down the drain.
CCT对你很有帮助 CCT会干涉到你的下一步是攻击还是防守 找到自己的漏洞 在对方发现前改掉 避免港大的损失出现 但如果是快棋局则没有必要
Feb 19, 2022
0
#6
I don't recommend CCT in live games because it is generally impractical. After 1...d5, are you really going to consider White playing Bb5+ every move? And after your opponent played 4. Qf3, are you going to constantly scan for Qxf7+ and Qxc6 every move? Sure, that might stop you from making a couple of blunders, but it is more likely that you would flag or miss some more important features in the position.
The same goes for solving puzzles - If the best move happened to be a “quiet” threat, much effort would be wasted calculating irrelevant checks and captures. And even worse, if the best move is defensive, then you are barking up the wrong tree if you consider only checks, captures, and threats.
Instead, I believe it is much more reliable to consider tactical motifs - undefended pieces, pins, potential forks, etc. Taking your game as an example, the tactical motifs to be aware of are the exposed h1-a8 diagonal and your undefended Rook on a8. Acknowledging that this is truly what you missed will make you more mindful of this diagonal whenever your opponent plays Qf3 (or Bg2, Bf3, etc), especially after you push your b-pawn.
In short, I can't blame you for not looking out for CCT because there are a thousand of those every game, most of which are irrelevant. Instead, what you could've done is keep an eye out for soft spots, like the diagonal and a8 Rook.
Feb 21, 2022
0
#9
Yes, from time to time I fail to get this right. It's pretty much always critical every time too.
AtaChess68 wrote:
What do you mean by ‘stay ahead’ technical_knokout?
Either by not losing tempo as far as possible (if he meant about the moves) or being able to anticipate oppnent's antics ahead of your move.
njg
топ
If you're not applying CCT in your games, you're not really playing chess
I loose quite some games because I miss a check of my opponent. I tried to include a checks, captures, threats (CCT) check in my routine but didn’t succeed till now.
In reality I do this ‘more or less’. A systematic approach doesn’t stick. I tried but it doesn’t work, maybe because it is too time consuming for my 30|0 games. And not efficient enough: doing this every move is repeating a lot of the same thinking. That doesn’t feel useful.
Here is a good example. GG opponent.
Possible solution:
Till now I try to include this routine straight after my opponents move (‘ok, Atachess, take your time. Do the CCT’s). But that doesn’t work, a few moves later it is gone. But what if I simplify and time differently: not straight after my opponents move but just before I move … I check if my opponent has checks.
I noticed quite some GM’s hovering with their hand over the board as if they are gonna move - Giri is a good example. And then when you think they will move, they hang, often retreat their hand, think again for a while… maybe that is what they do: a final check: does my opponent have forcing moves.