Chess tactical concepts?

Main

Date: 20 Dec 2005 02:43:09
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Chess tactical concepts?

By reading and applying the knowledge I found in IM Jeremy Silman's
book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
imbalances.

However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
harming my rating.

My problems with tactics seems very atypical, so let me explain:

I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
(although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)
2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in it
and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.

II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
checkmate.
2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
(such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
a passed pawn).

III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
which I subsequently lose due to tactics:
1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate
2. A tactical attempt to win is refuted and my position collapses or I
lose material.
3. My opponent gets unexpected counterplay which loses me the game.

IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
which leaves my King horribly exposed)
2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
prevents me from developing my QB and QR)

I would appreciate advice that would help me deal with my tactical
problems.

In school, I seem to score well in subjects which require me to
understand and apply concepts, which is possibly why I improved so
quickly with The Amatuer's Mind. Is there a book which teaches me
tactical concepts? Or is there a way to learn tactical concepts?
Hopefully learning tactical concepts will help me stop blundering away
pieces and losing otherwise won positions.

When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
time in OTB tournaments.
2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
he has seen the game before.
3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can you
remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?

Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
than how to win with tactics.

Date: 27 Dec 2005 20:49:41
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

Please read the earlier posts in this subthread that Ron and I
have written in order to understand the context, which Ron
prefers to snip.

Ron continues to prefer to snip the evidence that he misunderstood
what I wrote and jumped to absurd conclusions about them.

Evidently, it's too much to expect Ron to admit that he
has misunderstood what I wrote and to offer any apology.

When someone, such as tin Brown, writes politely to me,
then one may expect me to write politely in response.

When someone, such as Ron, writes condescending and
disingenuous rubbish at me, then he may expect me to
call further attention to his misconduct.

> > Has Ron *yet* been able to understand that 3...Qf3,
> > which *Ron wrote* in this thread, is an illegal move after
> > 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5?
>
> Right, it couldn't be a simple typo, could it?

A 'simple typo', eh? Is '3' *adjacent* to '6' on Ron's keyboard?
Did Ron intend to type 'Qf6' and 'simply' accidentally hit 'Qf3'
without noticing it?

David Richerby also has a record of writing illegal moves.
Unlike Ron, however, David Richerby has been honest enough
to acknowledge that his errors in chess notation have been
'brain farts' (to quote David Richerby) rather than typos.

I have much more respect for David Richerby than for Ron.

> Does anybody else on this thread - other than Nick -
> have any doubt as to what move I was talking about in
> that context?

That's a dishonest distortion by Ron.

In my earlier posts in this subthread, I have made it clear
enough that the move in question was 'Qf6', which I wrote,
and to which I presume that Ron, though he wrote 'Qf3'
(which is illegal), was referring.

> Heck, I'm sure even you can figure it out.

Again, Ron prefers to display his arrogance and
condescension rather than admit that he's wrong.

Ron has succeeded in convincing me that he's dishonest
in addition to being arrogant, foolish, and nearly illiterate.

--Nick

Date: 27 Dec 2005 19:23:22
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
> > > > what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.

Ron seems unwilling to admit that he has misunderstood
what I wrote and jumped to absurd conclusions about it.

> > I suspect that Ron's lack of literacy could explain that.
>
> It's okay. Keep trying, you'll figure it out.

Ron's evident lack of intelligence also may be an explanation.

Has Ron *yet* been able to understand that 3...Qf3,
which *Ron wrote* in this thread, is an illegal move after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5?

--Nick

Date: 28 Dec 2005 04:16:47
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Has Ron *yet* been able to understand that 3...Qf3,
> which *Ron wrote* in this thread, is an illegal move after
> 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5?

Right, it couldn't be a simple typo, could it?

Does anybody else on this thread - other than Nick - have any doubt as
to what move I was talking about in that context?

Heck, I'm sure even you can figure it out.

-Ron

Date: 27 Dec 2005 15:55:10
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Ray Gordon wrote:

In addition to snipping much of the context, Ray Gordon snipped the
identities of the writers who wrote the statements that he criticised.
In the interest of clarity and fairness, I have made those identities
clear.

> > > Nick wrote:
> >> > This kind of statistic seems more meaningful if it can be limited to
> >> > a sufficiently large sample of games between comparably high-rated
> >> > players.

(Ray Gordon snipped Ron's misunderstanding of what I wrote.)

> Nick wrote:
> > My context (which Ron has misunderstood) is the *theoretical value*
> > of 3...Qf6, which could be assessed best if there was 'a sufficiently
> > large sample of games between comparably high-rated players'.
>
> One need only examine the move itself to find its value.

Ray Gordon may believe that he *always* can determine the exact value
of an opening move simply by examining it *alone*. To the rest of us,
the values of many opening moves seem to be more or less assessed
after sufficiently many games have been played among strong players.

> It may have practical value, but that's separate from its theoretical value.
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >> The fact that there are complex tactical or positional justifications
> >> for a move may make it a reasonable choice at a high level.
>
> Nick wrote:
> > I did *not* write anything about there being 'complex tactical
> > or positional justifications' for 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
> >
> > I did *not* recommend 3...Qf6 as a 'reasonable choice at a
> > high level'.
> >
> > Indeed, I cited raw statistics from ChessBase showing that
> > 'White enjoys overwhelmingly favourable results' (to quote me).
> >
> > I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
> > what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.

I suspect that Ron's lack of literacy could explain that.

> > Ron wrote:
> >> But we're not talking about play at a high level - we're talking
> >> about players who are very close to rank beginners.
>
> Nick wrote:
> > My point is that games between 'players who are very close to
> > rank beginners' usually should *not* be won or lost *only* on
> > account of the opening.
>
> This is misleading,

Ray Gordon seems to be nearly illiterate.

> because many beginners do win in the opening,
> and wind up leaving the ranks of beginners.

Did Ray Gordon notice that I wrote 'usually'?
Can Ray Gordon understand that 'usually should not'
does *not* mean 'never'?

Evidently, Ray Gordon has concluded that I wrote the equivalent of
"Games between beginners *never* are won or lost in the opening."

That's Ray Gordon's severe distortion of what I did write.

I know quite well that some games between beginners are
decided in the opening. 1 g4 e5 2 f4 Qh4# is an example.

> To say the opening doesn't matter for a beginner is
> like saying "I'll learn how to play when I get better."

I did *not* write or mean what Ray Gordon *misrepresents*
me as having written or meant.

> > I would submit that almost any opening seems playable
> > enough among club level players.
>
> Not playable in the same way, however.

Thanks (sarcasm intended) to Ray Gordon for 'explaining' to me
that 'club level players' and GMs do *not* approach their openings
in the same way.

> > Ron wrote:
> >> What is relevant is that, at their level, a move like that is
> >> going to yield consistently inferior positions.
>
> Nick wrote:
> > I am *not* an advocate of 3...Qf6. But I regard David Richerby's
> > original criticism of 3...Qf6 as superficial. And I was pointing out
> > that 3...Qf6 seems not quite so 'bad' as some players think.
>
> It's not horrible, but it's very limiting, and if White does what Black is
> trying to do -- play intuitively -- White should emerge with the victory.

Does Ray Gordon claim that White should win by force after
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Qf6?

It's usually a waste of time for me to attempt to communicate
with the many writers here who seem to be nearly illiterate.

--Nick

Date: 28 Dec 2005 00:23:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > > I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
> > > what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
>
> I suspect that Ron's lack of literacy could explain that.

It's okay. Keep trying, you'll figure it out.

-Ron

Date: 25 Dec 2005 18:18:21
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

> However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
> pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
> good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
> hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
> harming my rating.
>
pick up Silmans book 'reassess your chess' which has the 'silman
thinking method'
explained on when to look for tactical motifs.

buy 'Winning chess Tactics' for basic explainations.

I find using software easier and more effective than books, but that
could
be just me. I use
- Chess Tactics for Beginners
- CT-ART

go through these programs and you will definately improve tactically.

the last piece of advice I can give you is read what Ray Gordon says
and do
the exact opposite... he is considered the village idiot in all the
chess newsgroups
:)

J.Lohner
ICC 'Inconnux'

Date: 25 Dec 2005 02:16:54
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

One of Bobby Fischer's great talents was to ability to recognize which
situations require deeper analysis. I believe that is your weakness. If
you recognize a situation is "tactical" in nature you should be more
observant toward the tactical possibilities.

Date: 23 Dec 2005 14:18:53
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Nick wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The context was completely snipped by Ron.
>
> > > This kind of statistic seems more meaningful if it can be limited to
> > > a sufficiently large sample of games between comparably high-rated
> > > players.
>
> My context (which Ron has misunderstood) is the *theoretical value*
> of 3...Qf6, which could be assessed best if there was 'a sufficiently
> large sample of games between comparably high-rated players'.
>
> > I disagree. In fact, I think this is exactly backwards.
>
> Ron has greatly misunderstood what I wrote, so his claim to
> disagree with it (what he misunderstands) should be disregarded.
>
> > The fact that there are complex tactical or positional justifications
> > for a move may make it a reasonable choice at a high level.
>
> I did *not* write anything about there being 'complex tactical
> or positional justifications' for 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
>
> I did *not* recommend 3...Qf6 as a 'reasonable choice at a
> high level'.
>
> Indeed, I cited raw statistics from ChessBase showing that
> 'White enjoys overwhelmingly favourable results' (to quote me).
>
> I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
> what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
>
> > But we're not talking about play at a high level - we're talking
> > about players who are very close to rank beginners.
>
> My point is that games between 'players who are very close to
> rank beginners' usually should *not* be won or lost *only* on
> account of the opening.

Such weak players tend to win or lose their games on account
of tactical blunders.

> I would submit that almost any opening seems playable enough
> among club level players.
>
> > And for beginners, who wouldn't understand - or couldn't implement even
> > if they did understand - the negatives of the move vastly outweigh the
> > positives.
> >
> > It's simply not relevant to players of the original poster's strength
> > if 3. ... Qf3 is playable at a high level.

3...Qf3 (written by Ron, not by me) is an illegal move.

Given the evident lack of literacy among many readers in RGC*,
anything that I write seems likely to be severely misunderstood.

I regard 3...Qf6 as *more playable* among weak players rather
than strong players.

I have cited some examples of 3...Qf6 being played by (then or
future) GMs only to show 3...Qf6 *occasionally* has been played
successfully (presumably for its 'surprise value') at a fairly 'high
level'.

Given that 3...Qf6 has *not* become a main line variation, it
should be clear enough that *in general* GMs do *not* think
highly of 3...Qf6.

I did *not* trouble myself previously to write all of this explicitly
because I had assumed a higher level of intelligence among
readers than what evidently exists and I did not then feel like
taking the time to write in such detail.

I suppose that some reader(s) will find a way now
to misunderstand what I have just written.

--Nick

> Actually, 3...Qf3 is an illegal move at *any* level.
>
> > What is relevant is that, at their level, a move like that is
> > going to yield consistently inferior positions.
>
> I am *not* an advocate of 3...Qf6. But I regard David Richerby's
> original criticism of 3...Qf6 as superficial. And I was pointing out
> that 3...Qf6 seems not quite so 'bad' as some players think.
>
> --Nick

Date: 23 Dec 2005 13:59:09
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote:

The context was completely snipped by Ron.

> > This kind of statistic seems more meaningful if it can be limited to
> > a sufficiently large sample of games between comparably high-rated
> > players.

My context (which Ron has misunderstood) is the *theoretical value*
of 3...Qf6, which could be assessed best if there was 'a sufficiently
large sample of games between comparably high-rated players'.

> I disagree. In fact, I think this is exactly backwards.

Ron has greatly misunderstood what I wrote, so his claim to
disagree with it (what he misunderstands) should be disregarded.

> The fact that there are complex tactical or positional justifications
> for a move may make it a reasonable choice at a high level.

I did *not* write anything about there being 'complex tactical
or positional justifications' for 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.

I did *not* recommend 3...Qf6 as a 'reasonable choice at a
high level'.

Indeed, I cited raw statistics from ChessBase showing that
'White enjoys overwhelmingly favourable results' (to quote me).

I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.

> But we're not talking about play at a high level - we're talking
> about players who are very close to rank beginners.

My point is that games between 'players who are very close to
rank beginners' usually should *not* be won or lost *only* on
account of the opening.

I would submit that almost any opening seems playable enough
among club level players.

> And for beginners, who wouldn't understand - or couldn't implement even
> if they did understand - the negatives of the move vastly outweigh the
> positives.
>
> It's simply not relevant to players of the original poster's strength
> if 3. ... Qf3 is playable at a high level.

Actually, 3...Qf3 is an illegal move at *any* level.

> What is relevant is that, at their level, a move like that is
> going to yield consistently inferior positions.

I am *not* an advocate of 3...Qf6. But I regard David Richerby's
original criticism of 3...Qf6 as superficial. And I was pointing out
that 3...Qf6 seems not quite so 'bad' as some players think.

--Nick

Date: 25 Dec 2005 15:10:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

>> > This kind of statistic seems more meaningful if it can be limited to
>> > a sufficiently large sample of games between comparably high-rated
>> > players.
>
> My context (which Ron has misunderstood) is the *theoretical value*
> of 3...Qf6, which could be assessed best if there was 'a sufficiently
> large sample of games between comparably high-rated players'.

One need only examine the move itself to find its value. It may have
practical value, but that's separate from its theoretical value.

>> The fact that there are complex tactical or positional justifications
>> for a move may make it a reasonable choice at a high level.
>
> I did *not* write anything about there being 'complex tactical
> or positional justifications' for 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
>
> I did *not* recommend 3...Qf6 as a 'reasonable choice at a
> high level'.
>
> Indeed, I cited raw statistics from ChessBase showing that
> 'White enjoys overwhelmingly favourable results' (to quote me).
>
> I don't understand how Ron apparently could have misunderstood
> what I wrote as an endorsement of 3...Qf6 'at a high level'.
>
>> But we're not talking about play at a high level - we're talking
>> about players who are very close to rank beginners.
>
> My point is that games between 'players who are very close to
> rank beginners' usually should *not* be won or lost *only* on
> account of the opening.

This is misleading, because many beginners do win in the opening, and wind
up leaving the ranks of beginners.

To say the opening doesn't matter for a beginner is like saying "I'll learn
how to play when I get better."

> I would submit that almost any opening seems playable enough
> among club level players.

Not playable in the same way, however.

>> What is relevant is that, at their level, a move like that is
>> going to yield consistently inferior positions.
>
> I am *not* an advocate of 3...Qf6. But I regard David Richerby's
> original criticism of 3...Qf6 as superficial. And I was pointing out
> that 3...Qf6 seems not quite so 'bad' as some players think.

It's not horrible, but it's very limiting, and if White does what Black is
trying to do -- play intuitively -- White should emerge with the victory.

Date: 22 Dec 2005 15:37:03
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

tin Brown wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> tin Brown <

Date: 23 Dec 2005 04:57:41
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

In article <[email protected] >,
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote:

> This kind of statistic seems more meaningful if it can be limited to a
> sufficiently large sample of games between comparably high-rated
> players.

I disagree. In fact, I think this is exactly backwards.

The fact that there are complex tactical or positional justifications
for a move may make it a reasonable choice at a high level. But we're
not talking about play at a high level - we're talking about players who
are very close to rank beginners.

And for beginners, who wouldn't understand - or couldn't implement even
if they did understand - the negatives of the move vastly outweigh the
positives.

It's simply not relevant to players of the original poster's strength if
3. ... Qf3 is playable at a high level. What is relevant is that, at
their level, a move like that is going to yield consistently inferior
positions.

-Ron

Date: 21 Dec 2005 18:55:21
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

David Richerby wrote:
> tin Brown <

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Date: 21 Dec 2005 07:23:28
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Try the Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames.

"J.L.W.S. The Special One" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> By reading and applying the knowledge I found in IM Jeremy Silman's
> book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
> site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
> rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
> imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
> imbalances.
>
> However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
> pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
> good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
> hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
> harming my rating.
>
> My problems with tactics seems very atypical, so let me explain:
>
> I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
> 1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
> (although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)
> 2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in it
> and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.
>
> II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
> 1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
> checkmate.
> 2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
> (such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
> a passed pawn).
>
> III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
> which I subsequently lose due to tactics:
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate
> 2. A tactical attempt to win is refuted and my position collapses or I
> lose material.
> 3. My opponent gets unexpected counterplay which loses me the game.
>
> IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
> which leaves my King horribly exposed)
> 2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
> strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
> prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
> prevents me from developing my QB and QR)
>
> I would appreciate advice that would help me deal with my tactical
> problems.
>
> In school, I seem to score well in subjects which require me to
> understand and apply concepts, which is possibly why I improved so
> quickly with The Amatuer's Mind. Is there a book which teaches me
> tactical concepts? Or is there a way to learn tactical concepts?
> Hopefully learning tactical concepts will help me stop blundering away
> pieces and losing otherwise won positions.
>
> When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
> puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
> 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
> looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
> would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
> If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
> time in OTB tournaments.
> 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
> like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
> he has seen the game before.
> 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
> solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
> 1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can you
> remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?
>
> Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
> than how to win with tactics.
>

Date: 20 Dec 2005 18:03:48
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Thanks for all the replies.
Most have asked me to do puzzles even after I explained my problems
with puzzles, but at least you have explained why doing puzzles works.
So, the concepts I am looking for are simply "motifs" (forks, pins,
skewers, discovered attacks, etc.)? And mastering tactics is simply a
matter of recognizing patterns which lead to such motifs, and that is
what puzzles will do for me. Did I get you correctly?

Hence my goals are:
1. Get a book which *teaches me tactical motifs* (forks, examples, how
they work, how to spot, then move on to pins, etc.)
Any recommendations?
2. Do lots of puzzles which are *appropriate for my level* to recognise
the patterns of the motifs
3. Try to spot patterns while playing, and when I spot a pattern I
recognise, look for a combination.

Some books you have recommended are:

"64 things you need to know in chess" - ?
"Chess Tactics for Kids" - Murray Chandler
"How to beat your dad at chess" - Murray Chandler
"Combinations: The Heart of Chess" - Chernev
"The Art of Chess Combination" - Znosko-Borovsky
Renaud & Khan's "Art of Checkmate"
Winning Chess by Chernev & Reinfeld
Reinfeld's 1001 Combos and 1001 Checkmates
Encyclopedia of Middlegames

Online resources are very much appreciated. Anyone can give
comments/feedback on the recommended books - for puzzles, are they
appropriate for a 1600 correspondence player, and for instruction, are
they concept-based and easy to follow?

Date: 25 Dec 2005 16:05:21
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

> Thanks for all the replies.
> Most have asked me to do puzzles even after I explained my problems
> with puzzles, but at least you have explained why doing puzzles works.
> So, the concepts I am looking for are simply "motifs" (forks, pins,
> skewers, discovered attacks, etc.)? And mastering tactics is simply a
> matter of recognizing patterns which lead to such motifs, and that is
> what puzzles will do for me. Did I get you correctly?

You can also play against strong computers, who will usually crush you with
a brilliant tactical finish.

> Hence my goals are:
> 1. Get a book which *teaches me tactical motifs* (forks, examples, how
> they work, how to spot, then move on to pins, etc.)
> Any recommendations?

Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames has about 2,000 tactical puzzles, many
from real games, grouped by theme (e.g., deflection, etc.).

When I was 19 years old, I sat down with that book and went through them one
by one. It definitely made me stronger. Lots of times you'll see positions
where both sides have even material but one side is winning due to
positional pressure, and this book showed all the various threats you could
make based on that pressure (such as Q+R v. Q+R, where one side is pinned to
the back rank).

> 2. Do lots of puzzles which are *appropriate for my level* to recognise
> the patterns of the motifs

I don't like to think of "appropriate for your level," because once you
learn this stuff, you'll be at a new level.

Tactics work for you the same way they worked for Morphy, Fischer, and
Kasparov. What you want to do is ask yourself what they saw on the board
that enabled them to play like that.

> 3. Try to spot patterns while playing, and when I spot a pattern I
> recognise, look for a combination.

This is especially crucial in the opening, as many mini-tactical battles
will decide the "line of scrimmage."

> Some books you have recommended are:
>
> "64 things you need to know in chess" - ?
> "Chess Tactics for Kids" - Murray Chandler
> "How to beat your dad at chess" - Murray Chandler
> "Combinations: The Heart of Chess" - Chernev
> "The Art of Chess Combination" - Znosko-Borovsky
> Renaud & Khan's "Art of Checkmate"
> Winning Chess by Chernev & Reinfeld
> Reinfeld's 1001 Combos and 1001 Checkmates

I don't like any of these.

> Encyclopedia of Middlegames

This one, I like.

> Online resources are very much appreciated. Anyone can give
> comments/feedback on the recommended books - for puzzles, are they
> appropriate for a 1600 correspondence player, and for instruction, are
> they concept-based and easy to follow?

I actually no longer read chess books, and instead write down whatever
theory comes my way, either through my games, analysis, or articles. I
figure that since computers play better than us, I want to learn what it is
that prompts the computer to play the moves it does, and if this process can
be duplicated by a human process of rules and guidelines rather than brute
force.

Date: 22 Dec 2005 09:51:34
From: Dc Gentle
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

"J.L.W.S. The Special One" wrote:

> Online resources are very much appreciated.

How about http://www.chesstactics.org/
?

IMHO (not being related to this site) it
gives a nice overview (with exercises)

Kind regards,
DC

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Date: 20 Dec 2005 11:45:01
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

I'll just add a "Me too" to what everyone else has said so far. See
this article:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman04.pdf

Get a book of about 200-400 tactical puzzles, and go over them over and
over until you can spot the solutions instantly. Then get another book
and do the same thing. Start with easy ones and work your way up. After
you master each book's puzzles, go back and redo the previous ones
again. They'll be pretty fast once you already know them. Repeat until
you're a grandmaster. Then give me lessons. :P

I notice a couple of people have mentioned Chandler's "How to Beat Your
Dad at Chess" as an instructional book, not as a puzzle book. I
photocopied it and put the examples on flash cards to quiz myself. It's
a great way to train yourself on recognizing the big motifs taught
there, and to practice visualization and calculation of tactics that
are sometimes as deep as 8 or 9 moves. I'd started with Bain's "Chess
Tactics for Students" and worked up to Chandler's book, though.

As for how to know if there's a tactic in a game, you just have to look
on every move, and expect to overlook things once in a while. As others
have said, you'll start to recognize certain patterns. You'll also
start to recognize certain indicators that there might be a tactical
opportunity at some point, such as a weak back rank, undefended pieces,
pieces whose defenders can be easily removed, etc. Even if there isn't
an immediate tactic, these things could cause one to come up, so you
just learn to keep an eye out for them.

I know it sounds boring, but redundancy really is the key to this
stuff. There are books that will tell you what to look for, but you
still have to train your mind to actually do so, and that only comes
from the experience of doing lots of puzzles and playing lots of games.

--Richard

Date: 20 Dec 2005 13:20:00
From: mike
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Your situation sounds quite typical.

Tactical exercises, drills, diagrams -- whatever you want to call them --
are a time-tested way to improve.

They can be very tedious, but they are also very effective.

I think every novice could benefit from these things:

1. Learning mating patterns.
- Chandler's "How To Beat Your Dad at Chess" is good.
- Renaud & Khan's "Art of Checkmate" is also good.

2. Being able to spot tactical motifs instantly.
- Winning Chess by Chernev & Reinfeld has 300+ exercises with some
verbal explanation.
- John Bain's Tactics workbook is recommended by many, but I don't think
it's a good value.
- Convekta's CT-ART is recommended by many. Lots of problems, good
value. I don't like the interface, but those who prefer to PCs to books
might have a different opinion.
- Reinfeld's 1001 Combos and 1001 Checkmates are probably the best
value. No words and old-style notation turn off some.
- Encyclopedia of Middlegames is good.
- I'd stay away from the Polgar book. Too many composed positions.

3. Recognizing threats.
- Dan Heisman wrote a book a couple of years ago on this topic.

Be warned: It is not enough to read these books once. I'd read one of the
mating pattern books and one of the combo books at least 3 times each.
Better still would be to read them so you recognize the patterns instantly.
This will take months -- possibly years.

Date: 21 Dec 2005 14:48:17
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

mike <[email protected] > wrote:
> - Reinfeld's 1001 Combos and 1001 Checkmates are probably the best
> value. No words and old-style notation turn off some.

The checkmates book is easier than the combinations book -- you know
you're looking for mate so you never get that, ``OK, so I've won a knight
but is there anything bigger?'' feeling. I suspect the combinations book
might be a little hard for the OP.

> - I'd stay away from the Polgar book. Too many composed positions.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Mouldy Goldfish (TM): it's like a fish
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it's starting to grow mushrooms!

Date: 20 Dec 2005 18:36:28
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

In article <[email protected] >,
"J.L.W.S. The Special One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
> puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
> 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
> looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
> would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
> If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
> time in OTB tournaments.
> 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
> like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
> he has seen the game before.
> 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
> solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
> 1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can you
> remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?
>
> Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
> than how to win with tactics.

Your problem is actually fairly typical. Most games are decided on
tactics, grand strategic plans. You need to do more puzzles.

But reading the above, I think you misunderstand how studying tactics
works.

What you learn, when you study tactics, is that simple themes recur time
and time again. The purpose of tactical training is to get drill those
patterns into your head, so that you can see them instantly.

As you do more and more tactics, you'll find that you see more and more
complex tactics quicker. So in a game, it's no longer a process of
stopping and looking for a combination, rather, the tactical
opportunities leap off the board at me - because I'm intimately familiar
with them.

More complicated tactics still require me to calculate to make sure they
work, but I'm so familiar with the ideas that it's not that I'm
searching blindly.

I've had really good results with the program CT-Art, by Convetka,
although some people prefer to drill with books. But I found that
program made drilling taste a lot less like eating broccoli. YMMV.

The way you learn tactical concepts is by drilling. There are some books
which aim to teach more than others (Chandler's "Chess Tactics for Kids"
and "How to Beat Your Dad at Chess") come to mind, and while I think
they're good starting points, they're no substitute for drilling.

-Ron

Date: 20 Dec 2005 11:31:01
From: Bob Fairbank
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

--------------CDFE6BC9AC0CD4AF0C607CA6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

After reading your post I suspect your problem is not entirely due to
"tactics." Tactics are: "Forks, Skewers, Deflections, Pins, Discovered
Attacks, Double Checks, etc." If you know what these are and how they work
you should be able to see their potential before they are sprung and avoid
making the move(s) that spawn them.

In short, the first thing you should do after your opponent makes a move is
ask yourself "Where's the threat?" This will go a long, long way in
preventing "blunders," which at our level of play is the basic reason we
lose games to players of our own strength and occasionally lower. We lose
to higher rated players because they don't blunder and their positional
play is superior to ours. I have no idea how to improve the latter other
than trying to apply the ideas voiced by Silman and others. If I did, I
would be a much stronger player.

Hope this helps.

"J.L.W.S. The Special One" wrote:

> By reading and applying the knowledge I found in IM Jeremy Silman's
> book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
> site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
> rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
> imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
> imbalances.
>
> However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
> pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
> good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
> hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
> harming my rating.
>
> My problems with tactics seems very atypical, so let me explain:
>
> I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
> 1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
> (although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)
> 2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in it
> and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.
>
> II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
> 1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
> checkmate.
> 2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
> (such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
> a passed pawn).
>
> III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
> which I subsequently lose due to tactics:
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate
> 2. A tactical attempt to win is refuted and my position collapses or I
> lose material.
> 3. My opponent gets unexpected counterplay which loses me the game.
>
> IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
> which leaves my King horribly exposed)
> 2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
> strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
> prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
> prevents me from developing my QB and QR)
>
> I would appreciate advice that would help me deal with my tactical
> problems.
>
> In school, I seem to score well in subjects which require me to
> understand and apply concepts, which is possibly why I improved so
> quickly with The Amatuer's Mind. Is there a book which teaches me
> tactical concepts? Or is there a way to learn tactical concepts?
> Hopefully learning tactical concepts will help me stop blundering away
> pieces and losing otherwise won positions.
>
> When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
> puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
> 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
> looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
> would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
> If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
> time in OTB tournaments.
> 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
> like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
> he has seen the game before.
> 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
> solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
> 1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can you
> remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?
>
> Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
> than how to win with tactics.

--------------CDFE6BC9AC0CD4AF0C607CA6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en" >
<html >
After reading your post I suspect
your problem is not entirely due to "tactics." Tactics are: "Forks, Skewers,
Deflections, Pins, Discovered Attacks, Double Checks, etc." If you know
what these are and how they work you should be able to see their potential
before they are sprung and avoid making the move(s) that spawn them.
In short, the first thing
you should do after your opponent makes a move is ask yourself "Where's
the threat?" This will go a long, long way in preventing "blunders,"
which at our level of play is the basic reason we lose games to players
of our own strength and occasionally lower. We lose to higher rated players
because they don't blunder and their positional play is superior to ours.
I have no idea how to improve the latter other than trying to apply the
ideas voiced by Silman and others. If I did, I would be a much stronger
player.
Hope this helps.
 
 
"J.L.W.S. The Special One" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE >By reading and applying the knowledge I found in
IM Jeremy Silman's
 book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
 site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
 rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
 imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
 imbalances.
However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
 pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
 good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am
not
 hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
 harming my rating.
My problems with tactics seems very atypical, so let me explain:
I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
 1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
 (although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)
 2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in
it
 and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.
II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
 1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
 checkmate.
 2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
 (such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
 a passed pawn).
III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
 which I subsequently lose due to tactics:
 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate
 2. A tactical attempt to win is refuted and my position collapses or
I
 lose material.
 3. My opponent gets unexpected counterplay which loses me the game.
IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
 which leaves my King horribly exposed)
 2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
 strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
 prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
 prevents me from developing my QB and QR)
I would appreciate advice that would help me deal with my tactical
 problems.
In school, I seem to score well in subjects which require me to
 understand and apply concepts, which is possibly why I improved so
 quickly with The Amatuer's Mind. Is there a book which teaches me
 tactical concepts? Or is there a way to learn tactical concepts?
 Hopefully learning tactical concepts will help me stop blundering away
 pieces and losing otherwise won positions.
When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
 puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
 looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
 would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
 If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose
on
 time in OTB tournaments.
 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
 like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
 he has seen the game before.
 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
 solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
 1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can
you
 remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?
Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
 than how to win with tactics.</blockquote>
</html >

--------------CDFE6BC9AC0CD4AF0C607CA6--

Date: 23 Dec 2005 21:26:05
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

>We lose
> to higher rated players because they don't blunder and their positional
> play is superior to ours.

High-rated players blunder all the time. They win because, move after move,
they know how to properly align their pieces, while a weak player will
blindly allow some fatal flaw to creep into the position.

Date: 23 Dec 2005 23:11:48
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

En/na Ray Gordon ha escrit:

>>We lose
>>to higher rated players because they don't blunder and their positional
>>play is superior to ours.
>
> High-rated players blunder all the time. They win because, move after move,
> they know how to properly align their pieces, while a weak player will
> blindly allow some fatal flaw to creep into the position.

That's why Mr Ray/Roy Parker Gordon think He should be "high rated", He
"blunder all the time" as other great players.

AT

Date: 25 Dec 2005 06:15:01
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

>>>We lose
>>>to higher rated players because they don't blunder and their positional
>>>play is superior to ours.
>>
>> High-rated players blunder all the time. They win because, move after
>> move, they know how to properly align their pieces, while a weak player
>> will blindly allow some fatal flaw to creep into the position.
>
> That's why

Pity "Antonio" for being such an obsessed freak that he comes in just to
AMOG someone.

I guess having women laugh at him all the time for being a chess loser does
that to him.

Date: 20 Dec 2005 15:35:04
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

J.L.W.S. The Special One <[email protected] > wrote:
> My problems with tactics seems very atypical, so let me explain:
>
> I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
> 1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
> (although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)
> 2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in it
> and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.

That's entirely typical.

> II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
> 1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
> checkmate.
> 2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
> (such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
> a passed pawn).

As Dan Heisman recently said in one of his Novice Nook columns at
chesscafe.com, in general, material considerations almost always trump
positional considerations. If your plan fails because your opponent was
threatening to win material or the game, you chose the wrong plan.

> III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
> which I subsequently lose due to tactics:

This is just a special case of (I), I think.

> IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
> which leaves my King horribly exposed)
> 2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
> strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
> prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
> prevents me from developing my QB and QR)

If this is a real example rather than something you made up on the spur of
the moment, you need to consider your opening strategy more carefully. If
you have the option of moving your queen to d6 before you've played ...d5
or developed your QB, you're almost certainly moving your queen too early.

> When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
> puzzles.

I'm going to recommend you do puzzles, too so I'll explain why it's not a
flawed idea.

> 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
> looking at it until I find the solution.

Firstly, ten minutes is probably too long to spend on a single puzzle.
If you can't do it after five minutes or so, you'll probably learn more by
looking at the answer than at the question because the answer is something
you couldn't work out on your own. Note down the puzzles you couldn't do
and come back to them a little while later (maybe a couple of days or a
week). See which ones you can do now that you couldn't do before and
you'll find that you're learning how to do the puzzles. The ones you
still can't do are the ones that rely on concepts you find difficult so
spend a little more time on them.

> In a real chess game, how would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for
> me or my opponent arises?

Because aspects of the position become familiar to you as tactical cues.
For example, if the back rank is weak, you try to work out how to get a
rook there to deliver mate. If there is an undefended piece, you look for
tactical ways to take it (e.g., fork it and another piece). If there is
piece whose defenders you might be able to distract, you look for ways of
doing that. You'll start looking for discovered attacks and so on.

> If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
> time in OTB tournaments.

By doing more puzzles, you get better at identifying the sorts of
positions that are likely to contain tactical opportunities so that you
don't need to spend too much time worrying about tactics in the rest. Of
course, you'll always miss some but that's in the nature of the game.

> 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
> like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
> he has seen the game before.

So you need to find puzzles more suited to your depth. The Polgar book,
for example, has graded puzzles.

> 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
> solve 1000 tactical puzzles.

No, it's not like memorizing opening theory. You don't memorize every
position and its solution but you start to learn what kinds of position
contain tactical opportunities.

> But what are the chances that one of the 1000 positions will appear in a
> real game?

Higher than you think, actually. :-) I've never had a huge and obvious
tactical hint from a puzzle in one of my OTB games but I've won two or
three internet blitz games with Legal's mate, for example. On the same
note, I've often played OTB and online games where I've thought, ``This
position is quite a lot like one in that game I went through the other
week. I think the plan there was to do such and such.'' It's a good
guide for what to look for in a position.

> Even if it appears, can you remember seeing it and the winning/losing
> combination?

This question is a bit of a red herring, really. If you remember that
you're in a position like a puzzle you've seen but you can't remember the
answer to that puzzle, that's a really big hint that you should spend your
ten minutes working out the answer over the board!

Another advantage of doing lots of puzzles is that it will dramatically
increase your ability to calculate accurately, which makes it less likely
that the tactics you do try to play will go wrong.

You mentioned in your post somewhere (sorry, I snipped it because I didn't
think I had anything to say on the matter) that you're looking for a book
that explains the concepts behind tactics rather than just presenting
hundreds of examples. You could try something like Chernev's
`Combinations: The Heart of Chess' or Znosko-Borovsky's `The Art of Chess
Combination'. Both are reprinted by Dover and can be bought cheaply from
Amazon. I've only skimmed them, though, so I can't say for sure whether
they'd be what you're looking for. As I recall, Znosko-Borovsky has more
explanatory text and is probably more your style.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Permanent Indelible Postman (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a man who delivers the mail
but it can't be erased and it'll be
there for ever!

Date: 20 Dec 2005 13:34:36
From: Tony Mountifield
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

In article <[email protected] >,
J.L.W.S. The Special One <[email protected] > wrote:
> By reading and applying the knowledge I found in IM Jeremy Silman's
> book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
> site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
> rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
> imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
> imbalances.
>
> However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
> pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent. I am not
> good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
> hopeless in that aspect. And this tactical ineptness is severely
> harming my rating.

A good book I recently read is "64 things you need to know in chess":
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1901983676

These two books by Murray Chandler look good too, although I haven't
studied them. Despite the titles, they are good for all ages!

"Chess Tactics for Kids" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1901983994
"How to Beat Your Dad at Chess" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1901983056

Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: [email protected] - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: [email protected] - http://tony.mountifield.org

Date: 20 Dec 2005 06:44:01
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Thank you for your well thought out
post. I hope that _way stronger_
contributors would pitch in as well! 8 >)

J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
>
> By reading and applying the knowledge I found in IM Jeremy Silman's
> book "The Amatuer's Mind" my rating (on online correspondence chess
> site ChessColony, my OTB rating in tournaments is only updated yearly)
> rose from the 1300s to the 1600s. I am now able to pick apart
> imbalances in most positions, and form excellent plans based on those
> imbalances.

Obviously, you are a conceptual type.
This is _very_ good.

>
> However, I seem to be hopeless at tactics. I keep blundering away
> pieces and missing tactical oppurtunities for my opponent.

A "sanity" check based on a "pass" is the
usual suggestion (no, no, this has absolutely
_nothing_ to do with your mental health!! 8 >) )
Basically, before you move, you ask yourself:
if it were my opponent's turn to move and if
I were in his shoes, what would I do?

> I am not
> good at spotting tactical oppurtunities for myself either, but I am not
> hopeless in that aspect.

"Quality" practice makes perfect here...

> And this tactical ineptness is severely
> harming my rating.

As well as reducing the fun in playing,
right? 8 >)

>
> My problems with tactics seems very atypical,

Oh, no, you have lots and lots of company...

> so let me explain:
>
> I. My ineptness in winning with tactics:
> 1. I fail to spot tactical oppurtunities to win material, etc.
> (although I do spot them quite often, I miss enough to list this here)

Tactical motif recognition is the issue
here. "Quality" practice should address
this.

> 2. I spot a tactical oppurtunity, but often there is a fatal flaw in it
> and the refutation leaves me hopelessly lost, often in material.

This is more difficult. Tactical motif
recognition is largely schematic. The
specifics of the position may prove the
motif to be a mirage. It is _exact_ and
_exacting_ calculation that is required
here. I will let other, more experienced
posters comment on this thorny issue.

>
> II. My plans being thwarted by tactics:
> 1. While carrying out my plan, I blunder away a piece or into
> checkmate.
> 2. My opponent uses tactics to prevent me from carrying out my plan
> (such as constantly attacking my Queen when my plan utilises advancing
> a passed pawn).

Plans are only as good as the available
tactics both for carrying them out as well
as countering them. It appears that some
contemporary chess theorists are suggesting
that the "plan" may not be as monolithic
as it was perceived to be, say, a generation
ago...

>
> III. My plans successfully leading to a strategically won position
> which I subsequently lose due to tactics:
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate
> 2. A tactical attempt to win is refuted and my position collapses or I
> lose material.
> 3. My opponent gets unexpected counterplay which loses me the game.

As per above...

>
> IV. Losing due to tactics in the opening
> 1. I blunder away a piece or into checkmate (sometimes into a line
> which leaves my King horribly exposed)
> 2. My opponent creates tactical threats which thwart my opening
> strategy (e.g. as Black, my opponent has a Knight fork on c7, and to
> prevent it, I have to play ...Qd6 which blocks in my d-pawn and
> prevents me from developing my QB and QR)

Opening theory _presupposes_ that the
player be familiar with tactical traps.
This is an integral part of studying it!
Unfortunately, line memorization often
swamps other _key_ aspects of study...

>
> I would appreciate advice that would help me deal with my tactical
> problems.
>
> In school, I seem to score well in subjects which require me to
> understand and apply concepts, which is possibly why I improved so
> quickly with The Amatuer's Mind.

This makes lots of sense. You are a
conceptual type, no doubtt.

> Is there a book which teaches me
> tactical concepts? Or is there a way to learn tactical concepts?
> Hopefully learning tactical concepts will help me stop blundering away
> pieces and losing otherwise won positions.

Yes, you have heard it _all_, right?

>
> When posing this question in other forums, people recommend I do
> puzzles. This method has 3 flaws:
> 1. In puzzles, I know there is a combination, so I spend 10 minutes
> looking at it until I find the solution. In a real chess game, how
> would I know when a tactical oppurtunity for me or my opponent arises?
> If I treated every position as a puzzle after every move, I'd lose on
> time in OTB tournaments.

I agree. Most players who swear by such
books and CDs seem to gloss over your
very, very valid point.

> 2. Many puzzles are way out of my depth. There is no way a 1600 player
> like me can spot combinations of the depth of Rotlewi-Rubinstein unless
> he has seen the game before.

Agreed.

> 3. Doing puzzles is like memorizing opening theory. OK, so you can
> solve 1000 tactical puzzles. But what are the chances that one of the
> 1000 positions will appear in a real game? Even if it appears, can you
> remember seeing it and the winning/losing combination?

Again. This is the issue of quick
tactical motif recognition. Do not
let "macho" comments about this make
you feel congenitally inferior. This
is a complex issue that many people
talk about shooting from the hip,
without, perhaps, too much reflection
on what may be involved here.

>
> Not forgetting my aim is how to avoid losing due to tactics, rather
> than how to win with tactics.

Conceptually, the ordering is right.
Interestingly enough, the two goals
will always be well correlated in
practice.

Hang in there,

Major Cat

Date: 20 Dec 2005 03:04:46
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

One of my games illustrates the tactical problems I face. In that game,
I built up an overwhelming position, but my opponent gained unexpected
counterplay and I blundered away a piece and the game.

Analysis of the game is also very much appreciated:

[Event "Prepare for an enjoyable game!!"]
[Site "http://chesscolony.com/chess.pl?bd=3902363"]
[Date "2005.10.11"]
[White "hildanknight"]
[Black "manhattan"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1200"]
[BlackElo "1577"]
[TimeControl "1/604800"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[Termination "normal"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Qf6 4. Nc3 Nge7 5. O-O a6
6. Ba4 b5 7. Nxb5 axb5 8. Bxb5 Ba6 9. Bxa6 Rxa6 10. Qe2 Ra8
11. Rd1 h6 12. a4 Ng6 13. b3 Bd6 14. Bb2 O-O 15. Bc3 Nf4
16. Qe3 Qg6 17. Nh4 Qg4 18. g3 Ne2+ 19. Kf1 Nxc3 20. dxc3 g5
21. Nf5 Kh7 22. Nxd6 cxd6 23. Rxd6 Rad8 24. a5 Rda8 25. a6 Rfb8
26. b4 Ne7 27. Qd3 Rbd8 28. b5 Qh3+ 29. Kg1 Nc8 30. Rd5 d6
31. c4 h5 32. c5 h4 33. cxd6 Nb6 34. Rxe5 Kg6 35. Rc5 hxg3
36. fxg3 Rdh8 37. Qd2 f6 38. Rc6 Nd7 39. b6 Ne5 40. Rc3 Rac8
41. Re3 Nc4 42. Qd4 Qxh2+ 43. Kf1 Qh1+ 44. Kf2 Rh2# 0-1

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Date: 21 Dec 2005 14:43:44
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

tin Brown <

Date: 23 Dec 2005 21:20:46
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

>> In general it is a very bad idea to leave major pieces R, Q, K exactly a
>> knight fork apart unless you have no other alternatives. Or for that
>> matter to set rooks up on a diagonal for a bishop to skewer.
>
> Only if a knight fork or bishop skewer is likely. Not putting two pieces
> on the same diagonal just because, in ten moves you migth forget and get
> them skewered isn't good chess.

Sometimes it's good to think ahead that way, but not at the expense of
something in the shorter term.

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

Date: 23 Dec 2005 21:24:00
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chess tactical concepts?

>> tin Brown <