What I'm talking about, Tony, is probability of occurrence. If something is more probable over the board, then it should be practiced more. The producers of CT-art, tactics software, whose should have taken note of that simple fact. If they had called their softare "Mating Attacks," etc. I'd have no problem. I have done almost all of CT-art and can't recall one where the player wins a clear pawn. In upper level chess, this is almost tantamount to winning the game. If I were designing software with a thousand examples, I'd have 500 winning a pawn and 5 queen sacs. This would more reflect the reality of over the board chess. The Chess Tactics Server site I mentioned is more indicative of real chess. Of course, they have queen sacs, but they have many more wins of a pawn, or a piece, or a better position, or simply finding the only move to escape mate. I believe de la Maza had the correct idea emphasizing tactics for the developing player, but I don't thing CTA is as good as he says, due to the unrealistic structure of its tactics armory. I agree, as you said, one of the first steps is to examine the position for forcing moves, checks, etc. In practicing this, however, i don't agree that having 8 queen sacs in a row helps much.