## Tuesday, March 13, 2012

### Grand scheme of a tactic

.
.
.
.
To understand the grand scheme I present here it is necessary to read my  previous posts about duplo-attacks and traps. To get a complete picture you should search my blog for "duplo".

I devised the following scheme of a tactic:

 ATTACKER Road to attacking square put your attacker on the attacking square with tempo ATTACKING SQUARE get rid of the defender of the attacking square Road to target square get rid of the defender  that is blocking the road from attacking square towards the target square TARGET SQUARE get rid of the defender of the atting square Road to target square force the target towards the target square with tempo TARGET

This is the complete scheme which presents all possibilities. Of course when some of the conditions are allready forfilled, you get a much simpler scheme. If the attacker is just one move away from the attacking square and the target is already on the targetsquare and there are no defenders of the attacking square, you get the following simplified version:

 ATTACKER ATTACKING SQUARE TARGET

When you have a high rated problem and you have no clue, the complete scheme will guide your thoughts towards the solution. First you have to identify the 7 points of the left column of the grand scheme in the position. Once identified, it boils down mainly towards two basic techniques:
• Get rid of the defenders.
• Manoeuvre from the complex scheme towards the simple scheme with tempo.
Special attention is needed for the defenders that are no defenders at all due to:
• being overworked.
• being pinned.
With this scheme, I can solve most high rated problems at CT.

Don't get confused by the issues of quantities. That is explained in older posts about duplo-attacks and traps. You can have one or two attackers and one or two targets.
• One attacker - one target: trap
• One attacker - two targets: pin, skewer, double attack
• Two attackers - on target: double check
• Two attackers - two targets: discovered attack
The attackers can already be in contact with the attacking squares or not.
The targets can already be on their targetsquares or not.

#### 1 comment:

1. When I did tag sorted sets, I started with forks, and next tag I trained was skewer. They have in common that it is the same piece that moves. This is different to a pin. The x-ray attack is however closer to the skewer I guess.

I was hoping that if I train tag brothers such as skewer and fork, that it helps me. Nevertheless it is probably only a very little improvement in the training quality, if at all.

The key point is, that you automate this. And doing forks trains this sort of tactic. We can see, that a tag is some sort of guidance. A context. It enables you to spot tactics faster if you know what to look out for. You automate this piece of guidance, and it doesnt matter that it makes your live more easy to solve the tactic. you will learn that piece of guidance AND at the same time you automate patterns as well. It is not enough to know what a fork is (piece of guidance), you need to apply this subconsiously and this you will only be able to do so if you trained lots of puzzles.
Again the question remains if you should automate the piece of guidance "fork" with a lot easy puzzles or with a lot difficult puzzles. You know my opinion to that question. I think both will lead to the aim to become better in tactics. But since some difficult puzzles are made of 2 easy puzzles, or it is the same puzzle just starting 2 moves earlier, so I think you save time in tackling the easy puzzles first. At the end, we probably need to cover the full range anyway. So it is fast to start with the easy range (not ultra easy range). It is important to have a good chance to fail puzzles, that is why the range must not be too easy.