I was just thinking a little about how some people are faster and more accurate when it comes to tactics. That much is obvious, but why are they? Better calculation? Better reduction of candidate moves? Better board vision?
So, how do you find them? Do you simply "see" them? Do you see the possibility for them (e.g. weak back rank, fractured kingside pawn structure with a few of your pieces pointing in that direction, etc.) and then calculate like you would a normal strategic move? The only remaining possibility is simple brute force, and while that might be feasible for CC it isn't for much else.
I've seen a lot of threads where people say something like, "I just knew there was a tactic, so I searched until I found one", but this seems inefficient to me.
I do have a point in all of this. I'm implying that knowing there is a tactic at all might be more valuable than calculating the actual tactic. CTS, CT-Art, PCT, etc. all give you puzzles knowing ahead of time that something is there, but what if you didn't? Wouldn't that be more valuable in helping "see" tactics rather than calculate?
Just wanted to hear some thoughts.
Originally posted by ChesswickMore practice is my best bit. I happen to just "see" a lot of tactics, but once in awhile I analyze the position, see the features (i.e. weak back rank, unprotected piece, isolated pawn etc.) and I come up with a tactic. The ones I see or sense are usually because the position is really complicated with a lot of tension, or it's similar to common practice themes.
I was just thinking a little about how some people are faster and more accurate when it comes to tactics. That much is obvious, but why are they? Better calculation? Better reduction of candidate moves? Better board vision?
So, how do you find them? Do you simply "see" them? Do you see the possibility for them (e.g. weak back rank, fractured kings ...[text shortened]... in helping "see" tactics rather than calculate?
Just wanted to hear some thoughts.
Perhaps it is not "knowing" a tactic is there, but being alert to positional clues and having the knowledge and experience to realize how to take advantage of it. From study you gain the basic tactical tools (pin, fork, discovered check) and positional knowledge (f2 is weak, doubled pawns can be attacked). From experience you collect mental patterns of how to use your knowledge.
For example, in a recent game my opponent had a traditional castled position, but then he moved his f3 knight away. I saw the positional advantage of a square guarded only by the king (h2) and I already had the Queen pointed at that square. I knew about the tactical tool of 2 pieces forming a battery. My next move my bishop came up to form the rear of the battery and then the next move was checkmate on h2.
Thanks everyone. It seems like everyone is mostly in agreement as to how the brain processes tactics. I guess I'm just wondering if there's perhaps a more efficient way of learning them.
MontyMoose hit on the part about the positional cues. I think Heisman calls it the "Seeds of Tactical Destruction", but a lot of different authors have referred to the same, from Chernev to Vukovic. Kotov said, "Remember that all tactics are based on undefended pieces, a weakened King, and/or a double attack."
So, if the seeds are there, then you can start calculating. Obviously if you see a full tactic without calculation then all the better, but many of the more complex ones take a great deal of inspiration.
So, I do actually have a point. Maybe going through games and pointing out the various "seeds" might help give the same visual cues as would common combinations that you can see without calculation. Maybe something like CTS, but instead of knowing there's a tactic maybe instead you just have to make a move consistent with the position. PCT does this as part of its strategy training to some extent.
I'm rambling, so I'll think I'll give it up for now unless someone thinks I'm actually making sense.
Originally posted by ChesswickIn "The Amateurs Mind" Silman advocates that amateurs stop thinking about always attacking the king and instead, try to understand the imbalances , and the strengths and weaknesses of the position, and then and only then, should they start calculating.
So, I do actually have a point. Maybe going through games and pointing out the various "seeds" might help give the same visual cues as would common combinations that you can see without calculation. Maybe something like CTS, but instead of knowing there's a tactic maybe instead you just have to make a move consistent with the position. PCT does this as part of its strategy training to some extent.
I agree with this, at least in theory. If there is a tactical shot, it exists because of a positional weakness. I think this is simular to what you're trying to say with the 'pointing out the various "seeds"' comment.
Even still, practicing tactical puzzles train you reckonise patterns and to calculate deeply, efficiently, and accurately. I don't believe there could be any substitute for practice. Lots of tactical practice with an 'every move will pack a killer punch behind it' attitude could take an amateur quite far up the rating scale.
it's too much to explain. But one thing I do is look "through" pieces.
ie: if my bishop is blocked by a pawn, I pretend the pawn isn't there and look behind it then realize.. wait it's attacking a rook or, the king, or a square it could be at that would give me a great advantage.. I might look for a way to get the pawn out of the way, etc.. make sure you look "through" every piece. Also have imaginary numbers on squares. Where the numbers represent the amount of times that square is attacked and the # of times its defended. Look for ways of protecting your pieces while attacking his more than he/she can defend.
another quickie is to never set up "walls" or "blocks" when calculating anything. For example don't think to yourself "ohh nice I could move my knight here and take his... no wait, then I loose my knight by his rook" don't just come to a sudden stop here because the first move looks dumb at first glance. Think more you might realize "wait!! then that rook is out of the way and I can move my queen there and I actually get an advantage despite loosing material" or what at first seems like loosing material but you get it back in 1 or 2 moves thereafter.
Also don't set a "roadblock" by not thinking different combinations/moves. ie: "okay I could move my bishop to take his pawn.. no stupid.. he'll just take my bishop with his knight".. keep thinking those things through.. don't stop at move 1.. you might find that their knight was guarding a piece and you've just moved the defender.. stuff like that.
There's a billion things to list.
Originally posted by pijunBest advice I've seen to date on this site. It's called "plying"
it's too much to explain. But one thing I do is look "through" pieces.
ie: if my bishop is blocked by a pawn, I pretend the pawn isn't there and look behind it then realize.. wait it's attacking a rook or, the king, or a square it could be at that would give me a great advantage.. I might look for a way to get the pawn out of the way, etc.. make sure you ...[text shortened]... the defender.. stuff like that.
There's a billion things to list.
Look beyond the capture/retreat/block/sac and see the real difference in the board after three/four even five moves.
It's all there. The fundamental difference between a 1500/1800 player and the 2200 player is the ability to see beyond the position.
skeeter
rec'd
Originally posted by ChesswickAccording to Silman, the alarm in your head should go off when you see some of this things for either side :
I was just thinking a little about how some people are faster and more accurate when it comes to tactics. That much is obvious, but why are they? Better calculation? Better reduction of candidate moves? Better board vision?
So, how do you find them? Do you simply "see" them? Do you see the possibility for them (e.g. weak back rank, fractured kings in helping "see" tactics rather than calculate?
Just wanted to hear some thoughts.
- possible check
- undefended pieces
- inadequatly defended pieces
Without even one of this elements, there is no tactical chance.
It doesn't mean nothing though if you do not find them even in tactical position when things are in your favor. So working on pattern recognition, and billions on puzzles might work 😛
Speaking of tactics, what do you guys think about "Winning chess tactics" by Y. Seirawan ? I heard it is very good book, but I didn't saw it.
Originally posted by pijunI think your list is very good. it's similar to what I do when look at a tactics problem:
it's too much to explain. But one thing I do is look "through" pieces.
ie: if my bishop is blocked by a pawn, I pretend the pawn isn't there and look behind it then realize.. wait it's attacking a rook or, the king, or a square it could be at that would give me a great advantage.. I might look for a way to get the pawn out of the way, etc.. make sure you the defender.. stuff like that.
There's a billion things to list.
1)look "through" pieces, exactly as mentioned above.
2)make a space scan, by looking "at" pieces. by this I mean find out what pieces protect which squares or pieces.
3)list candidate moves. (preferably all)
4)start calculating.
while calculating:
-when after one of your moves, there's a lot of possible candidate moves for the opponent, just skip his move and pretend it's your move again, to analyse your threat. then, find out what your opponent has to do to stop that threat, and go back to the position where it's his turn and list his candidate moves.
I think this threat analysis is very crucial in long calculations. I just can't do without it.
-create stepping-stone positions. especially in king and pawn endgames, you just have to remember the right position and even whose turn it is to move, and after very long calculations, this is really difficult. so memorize a crucial position in your calculation, and try to go on from there. (this was from a book, I don't remember the name)
-preferably, try not to calculate the same variations again and again.
-if you just see that something is there and a combination of some certain moves are required, reverse the move orders in your variations.
Originally posted by ivan2908Winning Chess Tactics is a decent book. I read it a few years back. It's a great introductory text on tactics, but if you're already familiar with them then I don't see how one would get much value from it. You're better off drilling tactics on CTS, CT-Art, PCT, etc.
According to Silman, the alarm in your head should go off when you see some of this things for either side :
- possible check
- undefended pieces
- inadequatly defended pieces
Without even one of this elements, there is no tactical chance.
It doesn't mean nothing though if you do not find them even in tactical position when things are in your fav ...[text shortened]... "Winning chess tactics" by Y. Seirawan ? I heard it is very good book, but I didn't saw it.
Chess Tactics (http://www.chesstactics.org/) is still probably the best overall text on tactics that I've read, introductory to intermediate. It's free online as well.
Another thing I do is let my alarm bells ring when I see possible pins/skewers.
Whenever for example your opponent places their queen in the same diagonal or rank/file as their king then it's time to take advantage. Also, you should try and avoid placing your pieces in such clumsy arrangements.
- work on your endgame, not your opening game as much (I know absolutely nothing about openings, I'm doing decently)
- make sure you use your king, it's a valuable piece, don't let it sit in the corner. Come endgame bring the king out into the action
- I have a few tricks I made up for myself when it comes to the knight. If a knight is on a black square, it can only attack white squares and vice versa. If you keep moving a knight, it alternates landing on white and dark squares. The possible 8 moves of a knight in the middle of a board make a cool pattern.
2 places in the top left, 2 in top right, 2 bottom right, 2 in bottom left. All possible squares to move on, the opposite colour than the square it is on. These squares automatically jump at me. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
My other piece of advice is to make sure you play yourself!! (Not with yourself, ahem). What I mean is most people will think.. Okay I'll move this here, there then that then this.. BAM!! I'll win! HA! Then the next move they say "WHAT? ohh man, I never saw that one coming".. make sure you keep all your opponents moves in mind. Don't just assume they'll play bad or that they won't make the best move.
So the best thing to do is make a move in your head, then think okay I'm actually the other player now. How would I crush myself! Then you'll find the best move
To answer the very first question: some players are so experienced they really can recognize a position and know what move is best since it has been previously calculated.
They recognize these position just like you recognize someone's face (literally in the same part of the brain).
That's also the key to playing blitz. They actually "see" the best move, and anticipate the outcomes...
btw I saw this on a documentary called "My Brilliant Brain" ep. 2, if anyone's interested. It's really good...