Wow, I'm probably the opposite. When a puzzle comes up with just a few pieces I groan. I find them more challenging.
---
I was going to try to answer your question about how to find good candidates on a crowded board, but it's more of a 1000 level question and answer, not something I'd expect an 1800 to ask 
Wow, I'm probably the opposite. When a puzzle comes up with just a few pieces I groan. I find them more challenging.
---
I was going to try to answer your question about how to find good candidates on a crowded board, but it's more of a 1000 level question and answer, not something I'd expect an 1800 to ask
Well, thanks for the response anyway! It's just interesting to see different perspectives. I know it's a bit of a simple question, but I'm just trying to refine some of my weaknesses so I can improve.
One "trick" I've used before is trying to find all the mate threats.
Yeah that sounds dumb, but I've worked through some difficult puzzles this way. You get 3-4 moves into your calculation, and you stop and make sure you've noticed all the ways to threaten mate in 1.
That's sort of how it is... sure some hard puzzles are hard because you have to calculate long lines, but others are hard because there's a cute little 1 or 2 mover a few moves deep, and you have to notice it even though it's not on the board yet.
So it sounds like something you'd tell a beginner, but I'd say go slowly, consider a wide range of moves without calculating very deep for any of them at first, look for forcing moves, and in general try to be accurate. A big part of that is after the puzzle review your lines to see if there's something you missed. Think about your miscalculation, and what you'll do differently in your next puzzle to avoid making that type of mistake again.
As for discarding lines early, for me that's mostly to do with piece activity. If I'm exchanging or even sacrificing most of my active pieces during the first few moves trying to get something going then that's probably a dead end. If I don't immediately see a win, then I'll usually discard that line as bad.
Conversely if I'm exchanging or sacrificing and still have a fair number of active pieces left over, then that line may be promising.
One "trick" I've used before is trying to find all the mate threats.
Yeah that sounds dumb, but I've worked through some difficult puzzles this way. You get 3-4 moves into your calculation, and you stop and make sure you've noticed all the ways to threaten mate in 1.
That's sort of how it is... sure some hard puzzles are hard because you have to calculate long lines, but others are hard because there's a cute little 1 or 2 mover a few moves deep, and you have to notice it even though it's not on the board yet.
So it sounds like something you'd tell a beginner, but I'd say go slowly, consider a wide range of moves without calculating very deep for any of them at first, look for forcing moves, and in general try to be accurate. A big part of that is after the puzzle review your lines to see if there's something you missed. Think about your miscalculation, and what you'll do differently in your next puzzle to avoid making that type of mistake again.
Thanks, llamonade!
It's helpful to have these reminders anyway. I feel like in some puzzles and positions the outcomes are less concrete than in others. Using the chess.com's motif of "simplification" as an example: knowing when to simplify a position doesn't seem like a concrete pattern to me, while a mate in 1 is extremely concrete. I usually don't have problems finding checkmates in 1 or 2. Trapped pieces are really hard for me, because it seems like you have to calculate a lot more and make sure there are no hidden resources for the opponent, as often these lines are less forced. Also usually on a crowded board, I tend to look for mates, forks, and pins, deflections, before I look for less forcing continuations and I just don't have the speed I want.
I just want to develop a type of intuition that use factors on the board to know what I'm looking for before I even start, but maybe I'm just looking to be lazy 
I've been doing a lot of Puzzle Rush/ tactics trainer lately and was thinking about the puzzles I find the most difficult. I am starting to think that a major factor in my poor performance on some puzzles is space. When there is plenty of space and less material, I seem to find tactics more naturally, easily, and quickly. I suppose with fewer pieces on the board there are fewer choices and easier to search through candidate moves. I think this is a problem for me in actual games as well, as I tend to make most of my mistakes in the early middle game.
Does anyone have any suggestions on efficient ways of thinking about crowded chess positions? I am especially interested in finding ways of quickly eliminating wrong candidate moves. Also, do you find that particular patterns that are more/less common in crowded positions then spacey positions?