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.
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.
Dustin Brown Chess
4 hours ago