I'm trying to understand the essence of the tree of scenarios. What I find is that every scenario leans on either the initiative or immobility.
Take for instance the generic scenario "add an attacker". You cannot simply add an attacker to a target which is already attacked by two of your attackers, since your opponent simply moves the target away, and your attackers will be rendered looking silly.
Somehow, the crucial tactical elements must be "fixated" for a little while. You must either add an attacker with tempo or the target must be immobile for a while. The initiative or the immobility are the necessary precondition which must be met.
The scenario is the plan what you want to do, while the precondition determines if the plan is viable.
The initiative is maintained by a double function move. One function is based on CCT, the other function is what you actually want to do. Say, you want to clear a line of attack. Your own knight is standing in the way. When you can move the knight out of the way with a check, or a capture, or a threat, you clear the line of attack with tempo.
Sometimes it is suggested that you have to investigate every possible CCT move. If you try, you will find that that is not doable. Usually there are way too much CCT-moves that perform no second function. That approach is a waste of time.
It is better to turn it around: find the scenario you want to execute, then you look whether you can do it with a CCT-move. With tempo, that is. Immobility
When a target is immobile, be it by lack of space or because it performs a function it can't abandon, you factually have a free move. An immobility is temporary, and it takes your opponent two or more moves to free himself. It is quite comparable with the initiative. The core problem
That is the core problem. We have to develop an eye for the initiative and for immobility.
So far, I haven't been able to internalize the knowledge which is confined within the tree of scenarios. Several methods were tried, but none of them stood up to the challenge.
I wondered why that is, and while pondering about it, I came up with an analogy. Quite some time ago I was a member of an economy study group who studied the book Progress and Poverty of Henry George. It took me about six years before I was able to wrap my head around the matter that was described in the book.
Once that was the case, it usually took me only seconds to dissect a complex economic problem and to describe it within the context of the book. I realized that despite all my efforts so far, I still am not able to wrap my head around chess tactics though.
I can investigate parts of it well enough if I take my time, but there is no coherence in my tactical chess knowledge. I feel that I'm not at all that far off, though.
So I'm rereading my posts from about April to now, and extract the essence of it. I'm going to reshuffle the knowledge until the core of it sinks in. Until I'm able to wrap my head around it. From there, the magic of the unconscience is supposed to kick in.