@ShaoniHiya what are you thinking?
How to Use Logic to Find Wins in Chess (How to find tactics more easily)
Sort:
KelticFrost88 wrote:
@ShaoniHiya what are you thinking?
when i can have time to watch that vid
@ShaoniHiya Oh ok, I was trying to read your mind. 
+
Sep 16, 2018
0
#26
I think I have a problem with these robotic ways of thinking. They can get in the way of one's intuition in my experience. Also maybe don't have much of a practical application in a real game.
I think in reality apart from a simple checking of motives and organising your candidates well (when you're learning), there's no secret apart from absorbing enough patterns through experience and training.
KelticFrost88 wrote:
Hey dude, thanks for sharing.
You're welcome
fissionfowl wrote:
I think I have a problem with these robotic ways of thinking. They can get in the way of one's intuition in my experience. Also maybe don't have much of a practical application in a real game.
I think in reality apart from a simple checking of motives and organising your candidates well (when you're learning), there's no secret apart from absorbing enough patterns through experience and training.
I agree with you, there must be a balance between intuition and calculation
Sep 16, 2018
0
#29
@imadarkhorse I'll give it a shot. A more systematic approach would help.
jbolden1517 wrote:
@imadarkhorse I'll give it a shot. A more systematic approach would help.
You're welcome! 
imadarkhorse wrote:
jbolden1517 wrote:
@imadarkhorse I'll give it a shot. A more systematic approach would help.
You're welcome!
ROL horsie, he didn't even say thanks and u r saying welcome
ShaoniHiya wrote:
imadarkhorse wrote:
jbolden1517 wrote:
@imadarkhorse I'll give it a shot. A more systematic approach would help.
You're welcome!
ROL horsie, he didn't even say thanks and u r saying welcome
But I am doing him a favour anyways 
Attacking most valuable to least valuable. Nice to get priorities in order, eh?
imadarkhorse wrote:
I just found this video on IM Eric Kislik's YouTube Channel and I think this is the best method for solving tactics that I've seen so far, do you agree?
Brilliant. Thanks for sharing.
Sep 18, 2018
0
#35
Thanks @imadarkhorse. It's great to have someone spell it out clearly. Typically while solving tactics, I will get lost in looking for move 1 without fully analyzing all the mentioned statements. I find that tactics below 1600 tend to exhibit properties which allow you to find move 1 through simple deductive processes, but tactics above tend to require more zwischenzugs, interference patterns, move order analysis, and evaluation of the relative values of your pieces, such as in tactics that require a trade of a rook for two minor pieces. So really, identifying the position's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should definitely be the priority, and IM Kislik says it in a very logical way!
I will also say that analyzing the FULL board should always be a priority. Looking for opponent threats (mates, checks, zwischenzugs, etc.) will help to decide whether or not you can spare tempi to execute a plan (not just around the king, but in all corners, especially if queens and bishops are on the board). There are some hanging piece puzzles rated 2000, and the piece is clearly hanging once you spot it, but it's missed so often by lowly players likes myself because we forget to analyze the whole board!
GWTR wrote:
imadarkhorse wrote:
I just found this video on IM Eric Kislik's YouTube Channel and I think this is the best method for solving tactics that I've seen so far, do you agree?
Brilliant. Thanks for sharing.
You're welcome!
RolloOrollo wrote:
Thanks @imadarkhorse. It's great to have someone spell it out clearly. Typically while solving tactics, I will get lost in looking for move 1 without fully analyzing all the mentioned statements. I find that tactics below 1600 tend to exhibit properties which allow you to find move 1 through simple deductive processes, but tactics above tend to require more zwischenzugs, interference patterns, move order analysis, and evaluation of the relative values of your pieces, such as in tactics that require a trade of a rook for two minor pieces. So really, identifying the position's weaknesses and vulnerabilities should definitely be the priority, and IM Kislik says it in a very logical way!
I will also say that analyzing the FULL board should always be a priority. Looking for opponent threats (mates, checks, zwischenzugs, etc.) will help to decide whether or not you can spare tempi to execute a plan (not just around the king, but in all corners, especially if queens and bishops are on the board). There are some hanging piece puzzles rated 2000, and the piece is clearly hanging once you spot it, but it's missed so often by lowly players likes myself because we forget to analyze the whole board!
Nice analysis! I agree but Eric just made tactics more organized and simple in my opinion. You're welcome!
imadarkhorse wrote:
ShaoniHiya wrote:
imadarkhorse wrote:
jbolden1517 wrote:
@imadarkhorse I'll give it a shot. A more systematic approach would help.
You're welcome!
ROL horsie, he didn't even say thanks and u r saying welcome
But I am doing him a favour anyways
ROL!
ForgottenAmericans wrote:
Great video by the way. I couldn't help but be astonished by the hostility and retardation in the comments from random hateful losers who had no value to add whatsoever, except to remind us that they have unhappy lives lacking in human contact and love. God, I knew the chess community had a lot of antisocial, negative people, but at least learn to give feedback. I guess there was none to give though, and it was a way to try to attack the IM who made the video without actually having any substance. There's a good chance they didn't even watch the video. Pathetic people.
I smell irony...
Keep in mind that I'm currently unable to watch the video (blocked in China where I'm on holiday. Yes, holiday. I don't spend every hour of my day staring at my screen and posting crap in forums). Firstly, your point about giving feedback is completely wrong. They are giving feedback. Just not your feedback that's correct in your view. In your one-sided point of view, are you saying that if a person doesn't agree with you, then they are retarted and antisocial?
'Attacking the IM'
Really? Before I even begin on this, they are attacking the video, not the person who made it. A title isn't everything. If Magnus Carlsen made a video saying that he's the best and everyone else sucks, would you still insult the people who disagree? In your reply to IMBacon, they even specifically stated that this was a good video. Still, you decide to take the only bit of constructive criticism and deem it as 'undercutting the IM'.
Are you the IM's hired servant or something? You praise him like he's the President (not assuming you support Trump).
The truth is, people are allowed to have an opinion, yes, even if it isn't the same as yours. You don't have to hail to someone just because they have a title.
ForgottenAmericans wrote:
Great video by the way. I couldn't help but be astonished by the hostility and retardation in the comments from random hateful losers who had no value to add whatsoever, except to remind us that they have unhappy lives lacking in human contact and love. God, I knew the chess community had a lot of antisocial, negative people, but at least learn to give feedback. I guess there was none to give though, and it was a way to try to attack the IM who made the video without actually having any substance. There's a good chance they didn't even watch the video. Pathetic people.
Especially when they don't even say a better method.
nice