Imbalances VS CCT

Hi,

I've recently started to improve my chess.
On the internet I read about CCT (Checks Captures Threads).
My chess is thus improved slightly.
Recently I also read about Geremy Silman's imbalances. That has also changed my view on the chess board.
But now I'm a little confused. I try to focus so well on the imbalanaces that I forgot the CCT. I miss often very good tactical moves.
Now, how can i find a good balance in my thinking process?
If after every move both imbalances and cct chekt, then you lose a lot of time.

I hope i explained the situation well and hope to get some good advice.

CCT, Checks, Captures, ThreaTs(or looking for forcing moves at all times , both yours and your opponents) is the proverbial "horse before the cart" .... you HAVE to do this before you look at anything else on the board.

Even more accurate =>

a) Before you make a move,

b) you have to look at ALL his forcing responses to your move

c) and KEEP calculating each line until there are no more forcing moves

d Judge if the final position is better for you or for your opponent

e)repeat c + d till you can't find any more CCTs .... and only then decide if your move is truly play-able or not!

Until and unless you are 100% aware of all tactical considerations on the board, any kind of positional evaluation takes a backseat.  

It is meaningless to do them in reverse or muddle them up.

 You can be spending (as I did many a time in my past and still do today because I'm a lazy butthead! ) time analyzing the pros and cons of trading bishops and simplifying to a winnable rook and pawn endgame and THEN have my opponent play a cheap 3-move shot that loses a piece.  Most club players (present company included) waste oodles of time pretending that we've absorbed the  essence of the Silman books and end up dropping pawns or losing pieces to elementary tactical shots that we pompously brush off when we seem them later in a tactics book or puzzle.

I think players way stronger that I am  (who do CCT/tactical safety-checking automatically just like breathing!) can afford to think of positional considerations immediately (as their inner light-bulb goes up the minute something looks UNSAFE) ... but unless you think you are tactically strong enough, you really should crawl before you walk.

Yes, doing a) - through e) takes time in the beginning. But if you are playing slow time-control games (which you should at this level), this should not be a problem and with practice, you will do your "forcing move analysis" faster and more efficiently.   To help manage your time better, consider doing these "imbalance/strategic" thinking runs on your opponent's clock instead of yours.

you will also get faster at checking it out. And you will learn that in some moves it is not so important to check for CCT and in others it is.

Just because a position is tactical in nature (i.e., has a lot of contact between pieces) doesn't necessarily mean the best move is a capture:

The best move here is 1.Nb3!  If 1.Qxf8+?,Kc7 2.Qxf6,b3 isn't that great for white. This isn't a hard line to see if we exercise like you mention the check, capture, and threat method.  We ask ourselves, "What does the opponent threaten?" And sometimes the big threat isn't immediate, but after the captures have been made such as 2... b3 here.  It's really not that deep, but tells us that 1...Nb3 is needed to not only threaten the queen with tempo, but prevent ...b3. 

I ran across this on another forum. You may find the "Hertan Hierarchy" useful.

http://www.chessforums.org/general-chess-discussion/5352-hertan-hierarchy-important.html

Thanks All for helpful responses.

However, another point that i would like to make here is that Silman says (in 'The amateur's mind') : When reading the board, don't look at individual moves, but try to read the 7 imbalances.

Now my question is, how can you check for CCT and your potential tactical possibilities against your opponent, without looking at individual moves?

Does he mean that ofter you did that, then look for imbalances? Or ? ...

i think silman thinking techniques and imbalances are better than tactical play.....bcoz in any position in which there are no tactical shots,no attacking chances ......what should you do???.

if you know about silman imbalances and tecniques you can easily find best continuation

It's not an either-or.  Nobody plays "tactically" ... they SEE shots and either MAKE them or PREVENT them.  Here's a regurgitation of what's already mentioned above => Once tactical considerations have been reviewed (translated as SAFETY for you and your opponent),  you can  Nimzo-Silman-Kotov your way through any  position and be as awesome as I'm sure you are destined to be.