TAL discovering targets
No targets, no combination. This can act as a powerful pruning method. How cool would it be if we were able to say "there are no tactics in this position, so I can stop looking for them"!
[disclaimer]
When I talk about tactical combinations, I exclude for now endgame related themes like promotion, zugzwang and the like. Furthermore, I use the convention to call only pieces targets. Hence no squares and no pawns. Just to keep matters simple for now. Another point of attention is the use of the term preparational move. I use that especially for moves that happen before the combination even starts. Like getting rid of problem pieces. There are preparational moves within the combination too. These are of a different type. They are part of the combination. Let that not confuse you.
This means, that we must find a reliable way to recognize targets in the position. Let's give it a try. Let me first repeat the part of the mind map that is about targets:
red = capture
green = threat
A target can already be on its target square, or we need first moves to force the target onto that square. This means that for the essence of our combination we need to SEE the target square, no matter whether the target piece is already on it or not.
When a target is not yet on the target square, we must force it there. There are 3 methods:
- Chase the target towards the target square. This is especially suited for slow moving pieces (the King) or for pieces that are already almost trapped.
- Lure the target towards the target square by a sacrifice (magnet).
- Exchange a piece on the target square, thus luring the defender onto the target square
- duplo attack (attack two targets with one tempo)
- trap (especially for slow moving targets (the king) or for pieces with little space)
- the LoA battle (changing the balance between #attackers and #defenders around the LoA)
- 1.Nxb7 Qxb7
- 2.Rb1 Nc4
- 3.Qxc4
Is the conclusion justified "No LoA, no combination"? Since both the target and the attacker might not yet be in place? Must we focus on the line of attack?
ReplyDeleteAnd if so, must we first focus on the attacker? Since it makes no sense to focus on the LoA when you don't know where it begins.
ReplyDeleteI think that focus MUST start with targets. (I would expand "target" to consider every form of weakness: pieces, squares, interrelationships, functions, whatever; but that's my subjective notion of "target".) As you noted: no targets, no combinations.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as you "SEE" a target (regardless of its nature), you automatically and simultaneously trigger a search for the means and the path(s) to attack that target. A prime example is LPDO. You cannot "SEE" a LPDO piece without concurrently looking to "SEE" if you have any means and path to attack it.
A target is a definite "destination" which leads to an assessment of the means and paths to get to that target, thereby constraining consideration of those means and paths. As the old aphorism says, "If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there."
The poets like to say, "The journey, Not the destination matters...” [T. S. Eliot]. It's obvious they never played chess.