This might be a stupid question, but in the example that Daniel3 showed, wouldn't the black queen be a better piece to take than the rook? That rook is less of a clear and present danger as the queen...
Your tactical thought process?
Sort:
Hanuman- I had the same thought, but his example was to demonstrate the concept of luring a piece away to achieve a goal (in this case to fork the king and rook). Obviously, in an actual game the queen would be captured.
I find the best way to spot the killer move is to play a blunder and hit submit. The time between hitting submit and the page refreshing is generally a piercing moment of clarity in which I see all that is wrong with the move I just played and the genius of the one I missed.
Nytik wrote:
Hanuman- I had the same thought, but his example was to demonstrate the concept of luring a piece away to achieve a goal (in this case to fork the king and rook). Obviously, in an actual game the queen would be captured.
You guys seem to be getting confused. The solution is not Nxf3+. That would be pretty pointless. It's Re1, Qxe1 and then Nxf3+, Rxf3, Qxe1+.
Loomis wrote:
My tactical thought process is usually pretty short: "oops."
Great post.
Likesforests, How do I get tha answers to these 2? I don't know if I'm correct...hammer
hammer-54 wrote:
Likesforests, How do I get tha answers to these 2? I don't know if I'm correct...hammer
puzzle 1= Re1, puzzle 2= Bc4.
Funny thing is that no one came in with such comments this time as "1st" or "too easy". I wonder why. 
This is the way the daily puzzle should be done from now on IMO: without giving the solution.
Feb 8, 2009
0
#30
On the second diagram, how about
1 Bc4... Ba6
2 Qg4+... Kf7
3 Qxe6+ ...Kxe6
4 Bxa6 ...
On the first,
1 ....Re1
2 Qxe1... Nxf3+
3 Rxf3 ...Qxe1+
Why is it that tactics trainer has such a short time limit? In a real game I want to check a potential tactic a couple of times to make sure there is absolutely no problem.
Surely the idea is how quick you see a line and apply it?
I admit it's not perfect but the same applies to all!
My only problem would be when the system freezes and you forfeit a challenge thus losing point!
I use my intuition but I have a process that varies from simple positions to tactical positions.
Depending if it is tactical, I will first take time to see whether my intuition finds something for about 1 minute.
Then I will view the board as a structural entity identifying the positives and negatives of both positions. With this I see where the critical squares are and identify functions and roles of pieces.
Next I assess what threats my opponent may have and evaluate what needs to be done to address these threats.
Next I identify my possibilities and see how they affect the position.
By now I have several candidate moves and I then calculate the most desirable first.
tonydal wrote:
I don't use any method at all--I just keep looking until I find a good move (unless of course there isn't one...).
I actually like this method of just looking for good moves. I think the important thing is to consider a move and then be able to calculate if it works or not. Of course, I eliminate the moves that have nothing to do with the position. I saw Re1 after about a minute, knowing it's a chess problem, I saw that he has to respond to it or else he'll lose his queen. So I see what happens after Qxe1 and I honestly didn't think it took much tactical skill to realize that it wins material, the hard part was finding it. First I tried the more obvious ones but I realized I would probably have to be a bit creative so just took a look at some more forcing moves. I only do these things mainly in sharp positions, but sometimes in random positions I look at insane sacrifices just for a split second and if there's some interesting way it could work, then I look into it. If you can look ahead very far and simply look for a combination most in tactical positions, you'll probably find it in most real chess games you play. The speed will not be an issue with practice in calculating, at least in 40-120 minute games. I don't think it's necessary to try an in depth logical breakdown of the tactics of the position, that's what takes too long and just confuses me because the answer will sometimes not make sense with the breakdown.
Odie_Spud wrote:
I’m in agreement with aansel. I think all combinations have a motif. By looking for the following every move I can determine if it’s possible a combination may lurking in the position. If there’s no basis for a combination you can’t make one happen and only then look for a plan based on strategical factors. The "plan" may be nothing more than a short maneuver designed to locate a piece to a better square.
1. Board scan of ranks, files and diagonals after opponent moves and before I move.
2. Look at all checks.
3. Undefended pieces.
4. Pins and forks.
5. Pieces that do not have "escape" squares.
6. Look for masked pieces.
7. Briefly look at bizarre and surprising moves -Sacrifices -Pawn breaks -Obviously unplayable moves
I really like the sound of this method.
Chessroshi wrote:
The first thing that jumped out at me was the weak bishop. It is a bit soft because it is only protected by one piece on the initial move. Because of the rook being the only logical recapture piece, we start to recognize the back rank weakness when we move the rook out of the way. After the initial kernel of weakness, it's just a matter of calculating out a few lines. The position is forcing in nature, so Re1 comes pretty rapidly.
Haha I hadnt even seen that. I thought the only solution was Nd3 but your way works as well.
Phelon wrote:
Chessroshi wrote:
The first thing that jumped out at me was the weak bishop. It is a bit soft because it is only protected by one piece on the initial move. Because of the rook being the only logical recapture piece, we start to recognize the back rank weakness when we move the rook out of the way. After the initial kernel of weakness, it's just a matter of calculating out a few lines. The position is forcing in nature, so Re1 comes pretty rapidly.
Haha I hadnt even seen that. I thought the only solution was Nd3 but your way works as well.
Seems to me that Re1 is the only solution!? Nd3 doesn't seem to achieve much.
Webhead wrote:
Odie_Spud wrote:
I’m in agreement with aansel. I think all combinations have a motif. By looking for the following every move I can determine if it’s possible a combination may lurking in the position. If there’s no basis for a combination you can’t make one happen and only then look for a plan based on strategical factors. The "plan" may be nothing more than a short maneuver designed to locate a piece to a better square.
1. Board scan of ranks, files and diagonals after opponent moves and before I move.
2. Look at all checks.
3. Undefended pieces.
4. Pins and forks.
5. Pieces that do not have "escape" squares.
6. Look for masked pieces.
7. Briefly look at bizarre and surprising moves -Sacrifices -Pawn breaks -Obviously unplayable moves
I really like the sound of this method.
Not my idea. It’s C.J.S. Purdy’s. The idea of #1 is to avoid fixating on one sector of the board as sometimes happens plus it’s surprising what you notice. I first started doing it years ago and by now it’s habit and takes only a few seconds.
One person told me it was a load of crap. A GM told him you just stare at the position and you’ll intuitively see tactical possibilities. Maybe if you’re rated high enough the tactics will just jump out at you but it doesn’t work that way for me!
Thanks everyone for the feedback! :)
tonydal > I don't use any method at all--I just keep looking until I find a good move
That's what I mean by the intuitive method--looking where your knowledge of stock patterns (ie experience) leads you. When I play intuitively I'm quicker but make some blunders; your intuition is of course sharper than mine.
The forcing method is about methodically checking the most forcing moves first--the ones that are easiest to calculate and often yield results. It's advocated by many master-level coaches and almost always avoids blunders.
merepawn40> Stillman's technique (from Reassess your chess) which says don't even bother calculating till you see 1) open or weakened king 2) undefended piece, or 3) inadequately protected piece.
Actually he says in How to Reassess Your Chess don't look for combinations unless one of these factors is present. He advocates calculation on most moves. But my question is more about the methodology once you decide to look.
Odie_Spud - Notice in position two there are six checks--your suggest process would waste time considering those before the pin just like mine. Even though that's not what I (or you, probably) really do... I see the pin instantly. ;)
aansel> I try and look at patterns (Knight forks, pieces on same diagnal) and then look for loose and unprotected pieces. After this i look for checks... [t]he whole concept of how we look at a board and consider moves in a very interesting topic with many good books written on it
My coach, an international master, advises as a general consideration to look at checks before mate threats before captures before threats to gain material (this is where a knowledge of patterns seem to be the most helpful) before threats to gain a superior position before general positional moves.
You pushed me to do a quick skim through "Excelling at Chess Calculation". I think maybe I found my flaw. How I work is:
- Find candidate #1
- Calculate candidate #1
- Find candidate #2
- Calculate candidate #2
- Find candidate #3
- Calculate candidate #3
Aagard suggests that mistakes we make on the first move of our calculations are more costly than ones later on, and hence suggests spending more time looking at the position to identify all candidate moves before calculating any. (Of course, re-ordering will sometimes update the move list.)
- Find candidate #1
- Find candidate #2
- Find candidate #3
- Calculate candidate #1
- Calculate candidate #2
- Calculate candidate #3
Maybe this is the change-up I need to harness my experience (pattern database) to speed up calculations while still being methodical? Of course, I would have to be careful not to forget candidates, something I currently don't have to worry about!
Sas3 - We are on the same page. :)
Sas3> What if you found a good/winning move? Won't you keep looking for a better move (for a quicker / more beautiful way to win)? Won't that take more time too?
Another dilemma! Before adopting this process I would sometimes win a knight and overlook a mate-in-three. All the more exasperating when my opponent's rated 2000+ and winning the knight doesn't win but only draws against a superb defense. I think my inclination is to keep looking unless time becomes a factor, or the lead is so decisive so as not to require much thought to convert--as in diagram two.
This might be a stupid question, but in the example that Daniel3 showed, wouldn't the black queen be a better piece to take than the rook? That rook is less of a clear and present danger as the queen...