Not Countering Threats

I think that ignoring threats is a major problem for bad chess players. I know when I actually take time to counter my opponent's threats I win more games. When I only worry about how I can attack, quite often I lose.

This is not tactics, perhaps tactics where all you do is counter an opponents threat would help people out.

@eladar said
I think that ignoring threats is a major problem for bad chess players. I know when I actually take time to counter my opponent's threats I win more games. When I only worry about how I can attack, quite often I lose.

This is not tactics, perhaps tactics where all you do is counter an opponents threat would help people out.

Well - sort of.

Ignoring or overlooking threats is a big reason people lose games alright.

IMO - Tactics is finding good quality attacking moves without creating weaknesses in your own position.

@mchill said
Well - sort of.

Ignoring or overlooking threats is a big reason people lose games alright.

IMO - Tactics is finding good quality attacking moves without creating weaknesses in your own position.

At some point, if I have an attack my opponent must defend. If my opponent has an attack, I must defend.

We do not do that kind of stuff in tactics puzzles, which is another fundamental difference between puzzles and game stuations.

"This is not tactics"

No😑.... it's not...🚬[edit]🤔

Sac sac mate

Sac, sac, hope for the best.

@eladar said
I think that ignoring threats is a major problem for bad chess players. I know when I actually take time to counter my opponent's threats I win more games. When I only worry about how I can attack, quite often I lose.

This is not tactics, perhaps tactics where all you do is counter an opponents threat would help people out.

I believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.

@Eladar

Sometimes you even do both with one move. 😲

@paul-leggett said
I believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.

Tacticians win tournaments.
Defenders win World Championships.

Not sure who said it first but it is the best chess quote ever.

@paul-leggett said
I believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.

If you want a better training tool, you intertwine prophylaxis with tactics.

I have been winning more today!

@eladar said
I think that ignoring threats is a major problem for bad chess players. I know when I actually take time to counter my opponent's threats I win more games. When I only worry about how I can attack, quite often I lose.

This is not tactics, perhaps tactics where all you do is counter an opponents threat would help people out.

Sometimes it's best to just ignore your opponents "threats" and let him do what he's trying to do. Sometimes blunders are prepared by the previous move, it's best not to counter those.

@knightstalker47 said
Sometimes it's best to just ignore your opponents "threats" and let him do what he's trying to do. Sometimes blunders are prepared by the previous move, it's best not to counter those.

Yes, if your opponent's attack is not a threat, then you ignore it.

If the threat will destroy your position or lead to your loss, then you need to do something about it.


Not sure why so many people are opposed to puzzles that require a defensive response.

It is best to play solid and slightly passive and wait for the mistake.

Steinitz
Lasker
Karpov

Etc Etc

After the past few days of tactics and games, I think my weakest link is not countering opponent threats, the most common has been failure to capture a rook with my rook, which gets taken the next move.

Really stupid, but a consistant mistake.

@Eladar

Basic tactics my good man.

Develop a simple and safe strategy like Steinitz, Lasker and Karpov and those things don't happen.

I get the impression you are trying for quick wins but fail.
Play solid and passive chess and you will be 1600 in no time.