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.
30 Oct 20
@eladar saidWell - sort of.
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.
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 saidAt some point, if I have an attack my opponent must defend. If my opponent has an attack, I must defend.
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.
We do not do that kind of stuff in tactics puzzles, which is another fundamental difference between puzzles and game stuations.
30 Oct 20
@eladar saidI believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.
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.
30 Oct 20
@paul-leggett saidTacticians win tournaments.
I believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.
Defenders win World Championships.
Not sure who said it first but it is the best chess quote ever.
30 Oct 20
@paul-leggett saidIf you want a better training tool, you intertwine prophylaxis with tactics.
I believe prophylaxis is the word you are looking for.
I have been winning more today!
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
30 Oct 20
@eladar saidSometimes 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.
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.
30 Oct 20
@knightstalker47 saidYes, if your opponent's attack is not a threat, then you ignore it.
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.
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.
03 Nov 20
@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.