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

cats-not-knights
Sqod wrote:

[...] without a good indication that White had a win then I would have just exchanged queens to save time on the clock.

[...]

(1)

[...] Bxh6

Ng6

Nxf7

and even...

Nd7

Nc6

...since I noticed Black's bishop is in line with White's rook on the e-file, suggesting a possible discovered attack. I also noticed that White's B covers Black's only escape square from the back rank, so I looked for back rank mate threats but couldn't find any. That d5-pawn really hinders White's B from being used in the attack. I considered ways to remove it or to distract the bishop, even crazy stuff like Qa6, but didn't find anything viable that would win. I couldn't find any fast win with any of those possibilities.

I then considered adding the Q to the attack--more force by declining the queen exchange and moving toward the kingside via Qd1 or Qc2, like maybe Qd1-Qg5 to threaten Bxh6. That latter looks most promising, but I still didn't see any forced win.

(2) 

[...] Black can't develop his QN normally. [...] His QB is also blocked in by that d5-pawn. That QB is also hanging, so I considered ways I might attack it, such as Bh3, Bf1, Rc1-Rc7, but didn't see anything that would work fast enough to force a win before Black could develop. Also, Black's QR is trapped, but I didn't see any way to exploit it by getting my N to c7 or distracting the QB protecting it.

[...] Somewhere in there, probably while debating how my N could attack the retreating B if it went to d6, I realized that Nc4 would be a terrific move under certain conditions, since Black's d5-pawn is pinned to the hanging B at b7, and if that fell the rook behind it might also fall.

 

 

all theese games are played here 3 days per move so I really didn't have to worry about time, but knowing my self if I think it's a crucial moment in the game, I would have spent 30 or even 45 minutes OTB to find a good continuation, hopefully the next 4 - 5 moves will be quicker to play since you've already calculated a lot. For instance here I would proced in this way starting with this order

a) there's a lead in development if don't exploit it before my opponent can coordinate I lose the advantage (not necessarily true but I guess it's close enough)

b) if you trade the queens you may lose your attack power and therefore your advantage (against a strong opponent too which will more likely turn the tables if you miss your chance)

c) I would look for forcing moves in decreasing order (the usual check, capture etc... pattern)

d) I would look for "atomic" tactical elements and try to work out some gain in material or some potional concession for the future.

 

about (1) I analyzed all of them and I think this follow the idea of looking for most forcing moves first, I can't remember now, but I don't recall to have looked for backrank mates, more likely I just gave it a quick look and moved away but I recognize it's defenitely an idea, I find Qa6 a fascinating Idea but it doesn't quite work.

I sort of felt compelled to not trade the queens but I couldn't fins any continuation, I didn't liked Qe1 because I felt it was in the way of the rook, anyway I tryed it too.

 

(2) ok I guess this is more about trying to analize "atomic" tactical elements in the position and try to build somenthing around them somenthing like it was in puzzle nuber 2 (actually post n°5, by the way did chef onion closed his account?) and I tryed hard with that too. having more "atomic" elements should be an advantage but I guess it may be confusing too, I mean it's again a lot to calculate...

 I really missed your idea I admit I checked it later with an engine and both sides can improve somenthing but the idea is defenitely sound! very nice ty.

 

 

cats-not-knights
SeniorPatzer wrote:
Sqod wrote:
cats-not-knights 

P.S.--4. Rc7 looks like a faster win in my puzzle.

 

 

 

That's What I saw too.  In fact I couldn't even see any other continuation.  

 

Great post and thread!

thanks 

cats-not-knights

a couple of days ago I was thinking of "closing" this thread because I felt that more or less I ve got some useful material to work on, and I thought maybe I should edit the first post and put there some other diagram just for the fun of the people who will ever read this thread in the future,more likely I will do that at some point. In the meanwhile I've lost another game, I blundered a piece because it's always good to blunder somenthing in a game... cry.pngcry.png  but I was really satisfied with the game so I have no regrets... still there a re couple of tactical shots in there, one missed from my opponent and one from my seide, again it could have decided the game but I failed to convert the initiative into somenthing concrete so the story repeat itself... (tbh the pengine assessed the possition as to be rather equal but in the game I thought I was much better like in the other previous games)

 

so first one my opponent miss this chance

 

second one my only chance:

 

P.S.: more likely around 8th january after years I will play another OTB  tournament I'm sort of excited I hope I won't blunder too many pieces when I'll be tired though...

 

edit.: for Sqod Spoiler alert this is the solution to third puzzle, feel free to look at it or to keep working on it, anyway you found a very nice follow up

 

 

by the way on that game I had another chance 

 

nighteyes1234

I dont see tactics and positional play the same as the posters here...Im thinking the tactics started on move 18 or 19 and that missing the positional move 16 Bf3 was not going to happen in my case.

Anyways to the question: when the game breaks out into an open position, and myself being a poor romantic/tactics only player, I try to look at each piece on the board 1 or 2 moves deep and see if that helps. Really to learn the tactics of each piece, one can only get better with more games and puzzles....especially by playing defense.  Its going to be awhile before a person gets any kind of proficiency they are going to be confident in if they are not creative in that aspect naturally.

 

Sqod
cats-not-knights wrote:

a) there's a lead in development if don't exploit it before my opponent can coordinate I lose the advantage (not necessarily true but I guess it's close enough) 

 

That's one thing I was going to mention but didn't: One way in which a real game is very different from a puzzle is that in a real game I keep track of the count of my opponent's lost tempi throughout the course of the game, whereas in a puzzle such background information is never provided. One practical consequence of this is that I know when to start looking for a tactical win since I know one must exist after 2-3 lost tempi. In this last position on which I commented one could see that White was ahead in development, but it was less clear. Another difference is that in a real game I would have been looking for tactical "killer moves" the whole time, so I would already have a number of candidate moves in mind before the puzzle position was reached, which would greatly reduce my search time.

 

cats-not-knights
Sqod wrote:
cats-not-knights wrote:

a) there's a lead in development if don't exploit it before my opponent can coordinate I lose the advantage (not necessarily true but I guess it's close enough) 

 

That's one thing I was going to mention but didn't: One way in which a real game is very different from a puzzle is that in a real game I keep track of the count of my opponent's lost tempi throughout the course of the game, whereas in a puzzle such background information is never provided. One practical consequence of this is that I know when to start looking for a tactical win since I know one must exist after 2-3 lost tempi. In this last position on which I commented one could see that White was ahead in development, but it was less clear. Another difference is that in a real game I would have been looking for tactical "killer moves" the whole time, so I would already have a number of candidate moves in mind before the puzzle position was reached, which would greatly reduce my search time.

 

completely agreed on both, expecially about daily chess, on a live or OTB game you don't have to calculate "everything" again expecially when you play multiple games.

 

I don't keep the count of lost tempi, but IMO my opponent here made a quite strange decision in the opening because he lost 2 tempi in a very "strange way" and that's the reason I got the better position, it's not I really outplayed him.