Double check: .3%
Hanging piece: 99%
Are the most frequent tactics also most often the "deciding tactics," i.e. the ones that win the game? Or do the less common tactics decide games a disproportionate amount of the time because people are less likely to see them?
Good question, I think that the most common tactics also decide the game more. But I do aso think that less common tactics get a disproportionate amount of wins even if this still keeps them less then the common ones.
Example, a double cheack is very uncommon but it involves a win very often if it is allowed. so even though it is available say .3% of moves it decides the game almost every time its played. Whereas a common pin would decide the game much more often, it is not decisive every time it is played.
As understanding of chess has grown to a slight degree I now realize the entire conception was a flawed way to look at tactics and does little to improve gameplay.
It is sometimes very hard to know when a tactic decides the game. Often the game was winning before any tactic.
Usually a game is winning or losing before any tactic.
hanging a piece is a blunder-not a tactic.
undermining- another term is removing the gaurd. Commonly threating a key defensive piece with capture
A noteable example is threating a piece that is the only defense to prevent mate.
Update years later.
Fork: Every move involves forking space. All tactics are double attcks and the fork is the base level example
Pin: Almost every move involves pieces blocking movement in some form.
Overloading: used in conjuction with forks and pins, most common as the layout is settling.
Undermining: same as overloading but one abstraction higher
Deflection: uncommon but typically desisive
Discovered attack: uncommon also normally winning
Interference: rare
Skewers: I see no reason to consider this functionally different then a pin
Every tactic is based on the double attack, All double attacks are based on Forks, Pins (skewers and x-rays are all function pins) and overloading. The less common desisive tactics decoys, deflections, interferance, discovered, and other names that function the same are derived from forks or pins.
All strategy revolves around controlling more space to make tactics more likely, This is why center squares and squares that are around or can check the king have more weight in a position.
This is a post about my educated (If only poorly educated) guess on how often certain types of tactics are present in an actual game of chess.
The goal of this post is to generate discussion in the subject of the likelyhood for certain motiffs to be available for use.
Two different ways, if not more, to go about this. First is list the relative probability of tactics which are influencing the game each move. Second is to list only the tactic that decides the game, or to put it more accurately, changes the theoretical evaluation of the game after it is played. The method used changes the order of some of the tactics. An example is that deflection is not as common as overloading but more likely to change the result of the position.
My evaluation for how likely a tactic is to be influencing the position follows:
Fork: almost 100% of the time forks or possibilities of forks influence the move choice. becomes even more important at late middle and endgame stages
Pin: at least 90% of the time a pin of possibility of a pin influences move choice
Undermining: about 40% of the time
Overloading: at least 30% of the time the possible availibility changes the available move choices, more important in the opening then other stages.
Deflection: 25%
Discovered attack: 20%
Interference: 5%
Skewers: 2%
Would like to know what other peoples estimations are.