Originally posted by Fat Lady
I wholeheartedly agree with this. Once beginners have learnt a few basic mating patterns and attacking ideas, they need to learn how to get to the sort of positions where this sort of tactic is likely to be happen.
It is much more difficult to teach this! If you show them a game where a bishop plays to c4 and you say "f7 is a weak square, the bishop atta ...[text shortened]... possible sometime in the future. It's not quite right, but it's a good starting point.
And what are the specific squares that you desperately need at the phase of the opening? And for what purpose do you need them? Is there any chance these squares to be considered primary as "outposts" and "strongholds" that they will soon serve your Strategy?
And what are the squares that you need most during the middlegame? And for what purpose do you need them? Is there any chance these squares to be considered necessary in order to help you stream the accumulated force of your pieces to the soft spots of the enemy camp? Is this accumulation of brutal force a product of your Tactics, or is it a product of a specific way of thinking that takes a specific shape through variations guided with accuracy move by move according to a plan? And what the concept of sac has to do with the enemy's soft spots, the accumulated force of your army and with the healthy placement of the enemy pieces? And what all this has to do with the pawn structure overall, not to mention its relation with the main strategy of the opening and the quality of the game during the middlegame? And how the opening and the middlegame are related to the phase of the endgame?
I long ago forgot about the egg and the chicken, for in my opinion Chess is Inhale - Exhale, it is Strategy/ Evaluation - Tactics, Strategy/ Evaluation - Tactics all the way down to the bitter end; and I try at first to develop my chessmen by means of controlling during the opening the Good Squares of the chessboard whilst leaving the bad ones to the opponent. This way I keep the wind behind me. And during the middlegame I try constantly to turn my ship broadside the soonest possible; if I am fast and accurate enough, I will win.
Is this primitive thought hard to be explained to the chessplayer and to be conceived by him? It has to be a bit hard I reckon, otherwise the begginers would be more easily advanced; but then one thinks that the whole issue is maybe related to the trainers, who at that level they serve Classicism instead of helping the student to dig Dynamism