what's the right thinking process to find the right tactic

I'm not sure how I should define this post, it could be a little test or or somenthing about tactics more likely it's about practical chances.

recently I'm not really playing my best chess,and I'm fine not finding tactics and/or brilliant moves but it still bother me to have not find them when I was playing better so here's my little test, this is a 3 day per move game that I've just lost:

can you find the right continuation for white without an engine? and if so what was your thinking process?

I don't feel to have playd bad until that point  and I feel I should have had some kind of advantage so I went all out but I failed to find the right continuation, this is not the first time that somenthing like that happen to me, so my question is: speaking about practical chances should I focus more on tactics or should I refrain to go all out if I can't clearly see a winning continuation?

Where was the black knight before capturing on g4? And what did it capture?

16. ...Nxg4

Here was my thinking process:

(1) White has a potential discovered attack on Black's Q, so White needs only to move his B to achieve that. I looked for something to capture with that B, found none, and found no other stronger threats. The B was about to be captured anyway with the N, so I just retreated the B via 17. Bf2 and per the notification I saw I'd gotten the first move right on my first attempt. 

(2) The next move took several moves of trial and error, especially with N moves, since I was looking for a flashy win but didn't find one. I got several fail notices. Upon failing to find a flashy win I noticed the obvious weak point at Black's c7, a common weak point like f7 (especially in the Scandinavian Defense and Petrov's Defense), and decided just to attack that with my N via 18. Nb5, and was notified I got that move right.

(3) At the next position I saw I would be mated in one with 18...Qxh2# so I had to defend against that. I looked for flashy continuations that might override that, especially Qd5+, found none, so just settled for exchanging queens, which was correct: 18. Qxf4.

(4) At the next position I was about to play 19. Nxc7, and may have tried that and gotten a fail notice. Then I noticed the back rank check, then noticed right away my N covering the only escape square (f7), so I checked via 19. Re8+. That's a common puzzle position I call a "glassy corridor mate," which is essentially a bank rank / corridor mate but where part of the corridor is a glassy wall (covered square) instead of a physical blocking pawn.

(5) After Black's defensive R move I thought "Now what?", then quickly noticed the resulting N fork if I both players made the obvious ensuing captures, so the rest of the solution was obvious. That wasn't hard to spot since I had already been considering playing Nxc7.  I'm pretty good at noticing unusual N forks, maybe because the endgames from the openings I play often involve Ns, or maybe because Palatnik's book on tactics for the tournament player has several impressive puzzles like that, which I studied a lot.

So there you have it: some dead ends since I thought this would be a flashy puzzle instead of a practical one, and I skipped calculation on some defensive move possibilities to speed the process, and some pattern recognition parts (glassy corridor mate), and some positional knowledge (Black's weak point at c7), and some general opening heuristics knowledge (Scandinavian Defense, Petrov's Defense), and a lot of puzzle practice (N forks and glassy corridor mates). Also some general problemsolving methods, like to notice a goal like Nxc7, then backtrack from there to try to find ways to achieve that. In a real game I would have looked at more defensive possibilities and visualized the whole sequence most likely, if I'd had time, before continuing. Note that the first two moves were purely positional, anyway, so the real tactics didn't start for a while, so just playing positionally would get you through the first two moves.

I think you have a point when you say we should look also to threats, more likely 90% of the explanation lies here and on the fact that I was biased looking toward the kingside sor some checkmate parrtern that black could had thwart only with some material loss.

I had liked you to find the solution without an engine though, becase even if you have a good point (and I thank you for that), I'm still missing the steps of your thinking process (somenthing more on the line of what Sqod did in his post)

I agree that threats are harder to see, I found this one quite easier: 

I would defenitely consider trading rooks first for a couple of reasons.  I'm not sure that the tactic will work if you play NXc7 first...

I dont remember where, or who i heard this from, but...

"What is the piece that moved not doing now, that it was doing before it moved?"

This has actually helped me with tactics.  

Good tip, I think. In my opening repertoire file I keep track of such things even in the opening. For example, a common opening trap is for White in some openings (e.g., Caro-Kann Defense) to move his QB, which undefends his b2-pawn, then Black's Q swoops in with ...Qb6 to attack that undefended pawn. So in my repertoire annotations I put the PGN comment "{-undefend b-pawn.}" whenever White develops his QB for the first time, as a reminder of what to look for in that opening to find the best continuations and to understand the position better.

Thanks for your reply

1) I surely started from here, (TBH I still had in mind a couple of ideas before because even if I did trade the LSB other elements in the position didn't change) unfortunately I couldn't see a good way to follow up and then I made a wrong choice

2) I was indeed looking for somenthing flashy and this could be one of the reasons that lead me to fail but I would like to point out that when I went for this approach some moves before (exploiting the lead in developement and the partially exposed white king) I was looking and hoping to get somenthing in that sector of the board, so in a certain way it was only natural for me to follow my plan and I was focused on that. IMO if I had to put it more into words,  I guess in this specific cirumstance it should be somenthing like: "I failed to exploit a second weakness while attacking a first one"

3) more or less forced but here we're already parting our ways because I couldn't see all the follow up, nevertheless it was interesting thank you again. All the rest seems quite logic to me So I won't add anything up to 5)

Coming to the part where you speak about a real game I would love to ask you if you would have really gone for Nb5 anyway: I posted this diagram because it was top line for stockfish but check out this one:

I don't agree with you about the first 2 moves being purely positional, I didn't played Bf2 because I wanted to keep the option of the discover on the queen later, I also didn't wanted to get my bishop excahnged with Nxf2 and positionally speaking if nothing I would have prefered to exchange my DSB for the bishop in g7. I may agree or not with the tactic beginning one or 2 moves later (basically I think it's a matter of definition but I can see your point) but what it matters to me is that in order to find Bf2 I had to start to calculate from here; as you see I failed to play it.

Last let me ask you one more effort, this is a postion from another game: 

I had the initiative and I lost the game, please try to work on it without an engine and if you will nice enough then share your thinking process with me again. 

The material is equal, the pawn structure is pretty much the same, white has a lead in development and has to figure out what to do: losing a tempo retreating the queen or trying to capitalize on the development advantage, in other words (at least at first sight) it's about assessing what's best among exchanging the queens and try to do somenthing before black will untangle his queenside, or keeping the queen on the board and find a good square to retreat (I think it's basically c2 or e1)

My bad I didn't meant you didn't used your human intellect at all, my point was more about the thinking process, as I said before the idea of considering threats is valuable and I will surely keep in mind for the future, still what I miss is when you did started to use this precise idea to solve the puzzle, trying to be more clear I hope to deduct some hint on how use effectively this ideas into practical games by looking at other people thinking process.

I guess you would be surprised to know that I have a private teacher... I'm sorry if I did offended you that was not my intention.

I'll try to be even more clear

a)I think we can all agree that looking at the starting position someone is inclined to look for tactical chances, we still don't know if they're there or not, we have to calculate and find out.

b) I guess we all know some general rules or principles, and I guess we still all know that somentimes general ideas doesn't work.

At some point in the game we are be called to make decisions, at first (I'm still guessing) we first look for general principles and then we look for different ideas. now... if we apply a general principle and it works fine in the position it's all good and it looks natural, but what if we don't apply it and it was correct? and viceversa? sure thing if there's a mistake there's some miscalculation but we're also human and there's also a psychological aspect to be considered (for instance I guess we don't really blunder much when we have a good position on the contrary we blunder more when we feel we're in a tight spot, or at least it works this way for me).

When I think about the elements that helps to reach the best move (a good move), there's a grey zone where calculation, method of calculation, abstract consideration, and psychological aspects intersect each others. What I hoped to get was the pattern of thoughts of someone who solved the diagram (that's why in the first post I wrote without an engine)  and to follow that flow. 

For instance in the game, even before the diagram position, I really tryed to find some tactical solution: I first started with the more forcing moves (this is a method of calculation) and since I couldn't find anything I started to work on abstract ideas, somenthing like "the light diagonal a2-g8 and the exposed king" using them as starting point and trying to buildup the rest on that, basically I was trying to put some order because there were too many things to calculate for me and I needed to cut down the branches of the tree. 

Hopefully following the thinking process of someone who solved it could give some indications, for instance how and why he didn't give up? how and why he discarder that line or that abstract idea? and so on... it may be pointless but it may be worth a try. I'm not sure if this is really somenthing you can ask to your teacher, (although if I'm not mistaken, some gm wrote some books about mistakes and psychological aspects of the game)

P.S.: Sorry if my engliish is bad, it takes me a while to write in a decent way and read everything again require some energy....

I'm not used to this, I think I will have to give atry to this too, I've always been more on the forcing moves first (checks, capture, threats and  positional), but this also look quite an interesting routine.

thanks.

I'm not saying that using an engine is bad, I'm trying to do somenthing a little different here, peraphs I already used the engine my self before posting, (and I used the help of the engine while posting too)

about the diagram... thanks that was exactly what I was looking for.

cheers!

The age old "forcing move" is what i use too, but this also seems to really help.  Its forncing me to look deeper, and harder at postions.  I just wish i could remember where i heard it.

I've tried various check lists and flow charts for move selection, but other than forcing myself always, always, always to consider my opponent's possible threats and a last second "I'm not hanging a piece now, am I?", I've not found anything that worked for me.

GM Kotov ("Think Like a Grandmaster") to the contrary, I don't believe that's how human players operate. At least not me.

What has worked for me is doing lots of chess exercises. The more I solve, the more stuff jumps out at me over the board. I'm not saying that's a guarantee to gaining 700 rating points in a year or the only training a chess player needs, but it does pay off over time.

I considered Nb5 but didn't like seeing my knight way over on the queenside with so much stuff happening in the center and kingside. Maybe if I had spent more time, I would have given Nb5 more thought. I would have played Nde6, which Stockfish rates at 1.40 vs 2.38 for Nb5. Which doesn't seem like a disaster and wouldn't have made me worry about my ability.

Having seen this position, I'll remember it deep down and maybe next time something like this occurs my brain will dredge it up. But not because I was using a conscious process. Most likely it will be a latent awareness that a bishop pawn is hard to protect when the bishop is still on the first rank. so it will be weak if the queen wanders away.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-tactical-detector

could it be this one?

Good article, but that wasnt it.

first of all ty for your reply

well... I think that the thinking process about Nb5 being on the wrong side of the board is exactly the same one that I followed, now that you mention I even tryed Nb5 but I failed to see the follow up, at this point my best guess it's that general ideas blinded my queenside vision, all that I saw there is that there was some pieces that shouldn't have entered into play...

well IDK I wasn't doubting my ability, at least not my understanding of the game up to that point (or some move before), as a matter of fact I hade a clear advantage, somehow my decision process started malfunctioning, I have some hard time explaing it, now that I look into all this lines again and again the more that I look into them the more they seem to be legit, for sure at that time I was under the impression that my position was going to fall apart, I couldn't see anything good and I went for 16. Bxg4 which I really didn't liked to play and still I played it anyway!! the move after I played Nde6 even if I really didn't liked it again!!! honestly the line that you suggested really felt like a disaster to me I guess I was too focused on keeping pieces on the borad that I became blind to everything else, I'm not sure if I thought that after 17. Bf2 Qf6 18. Nde6 Bxf6 white was looking, but I'm sure I really didn't wanted to trade pieces so after 18. ...Bxf6 there was less pieces on the board, I thought black had almost solved his development problem and that he was actually fine...

I think I'm starting to get closer to the truth, ty.

To me, there were 3 good continuations for white for 1st move:

1) f5 (opens some lines of attack and weakens opponent castle)

2) Nb5 (attacks a pawn and allows a check with Qd5)

3) Bf3 (discovered attack on his queen)

Move 2 was obvious to me because I had already tried it in move 1.

Move 3 also seemed obvious.

Move 4 had two possibilities:

1) Re8+

2) Nc7

Re8+ looked more attractive and ambitious to me. I didn't really calculate it and just played it.

Move 5 had two options:

1) Rd8+

2) Nc7 

Move 6 was obvious because I had already considered it in move 5.

But, I will confess this: until the end of the puzzle, I never saw that the elephant(rook) was trapped. I have difficulty in seeing trapped pieces particularly elephants(rooks). I was just looking for best possible continuations at each stage.

cats-not-knights: It could be you are playing as well as you can at this point in your chess journey.

I don't think it's a big deal that you missed Nb5. I did too. We both discarded it for the same reason -- why send the knight over to queenside while the center and kingside are fraught with action? That's an improvement over a weaker player who might have impulsively played Nb5 because he saw a potentially loose pawn and rook but wasn't following the main thread of the game in the center.

As you advance in chess (or anything else) you first learn the general principles and later the exceptions.

I once worked on a tactics puzzle from GM Aagaard. I stared and stared at the position but nothing came. I finally gave up and read the solution. It was a couple of forced moves that climaxed with White Qd5 forking Black's castled king on g8 and his queen rook on a8 which was loose because the QB was still on c8 like your position.

Aagaard commented that any master would notice the possibility in that configuration. Well, I'm not a master and I hadn't noticed, but I do now, although not consciously. I get a tingle when I see the diagonals to the king and rook are open like that, just like I do when I see a king open to a back row mate.

But that comes from experience, not a set of conscious rules for move selection.

When looking at the position, the first thing I notice are of course the obvious forcing looking moves. If I move the bishop the queen is attacked by a rook. That is duh of course...but because of that I start to look for ways the bishop can move with some threat besides just the queen.

I also chunk together various common tactical motifs. I see that if my queen reaches d5...AND if I get the enemy queen to not defend f7, then I will win a rook or smothered mate. That whole tactical sequence is something I see a lot so its almost like one move to me. So I see that moving my bishop will not only threaten the queen, but the queen may be fairly limited in its moves.

Another tactical pattern chunk that I see...because I am interested in moving the knight because I am interested in the white queen having access to d5, is Nb5-nxc7 Rb8 Bxa7, trapping the rook. Again that sequence is very common so it is like one move to me.

Something that makes finding the tactics here rather difficult is that there are so many different tempting ideas...for example the move f5 looks tempting because I can see a lot of potential action on the f file, especially coordinated with Qd5+.

I played the first move in the puzzle but I was really kinda guessing. I wasn't entirely sure it was better than Nb5...and I still just felt like playing f5...but I could also see that black has a lot of 'things' going on himself and therefore could probably repair his position if I don't do something very forcing...nb5 and f5 just did not feel like it came with quite enough of a threat. But I did not see that Qf6 was forced. In fact, I still don't. Qd7 Ne6 re8 looks unpleasant, but I don't see the win.

But anyway after Qf6 it was easy to play Nb5 because it was something 'in the air' from the start and c7 is unprotected. But again...I don't really see why qxf4 is the 'only' move.

I did not guess 19.qxq. I wanted to play 19 Qd5+ kh8 20 Bg3  with the idea of nf7+...and I still don't see why that's wrong.