Diagnosis
I focus on tactical positions that are solvable with the aid of the tree of scenarios. To keep matters simple for now, that excludes counter attacks, promotion and traps. Those will be treated later.
The first step is the diagnosis of the position:
- Investigation of the targets (on both sides)
- Investigating the defenders (and the attackers)
Investigation of the targets
What are the targets on both sides. Potential targets are:
- B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) pieces
- Insufficient defended targets
- Invasion squares
BAD pieces are interesting because there is a lot of tension around the targets. The attackers and the defenders are in a delicate balance, and the more defenders there are, the greater the chance to tip the balance by compromising one of the defenders.
Insufficient defended pieces usually come with some hidden mechanism in puzzles. Sometimes you cannot take them because of a counter attack. Sometimes you need to take a preparatory measure. Sometimes you think you cannot take them while actually you can. It is often the realm of double attacks and LPDO.
Invasion squares are still somewhat vague. For now I define them as squares that when you invade them, that it doesn't end well for your opponent. They have a lot in common with BAD pieces and insufficient defended targets. So I suppose there are two tastes: B.A.D. (Barely Adequate Defended) invasion squares and insufficient defended squares. That might imply that the way you battle for an invasion square will have a lot of similarities with fighting for pieces.
Investigating the defenders
BAD pieces have an equal amount of attackers and defenders. When you manage to tip the balance, you gain a piece. There are two methods:
- eliminate a defender
- add an attacker (with tempo)
What is the status of the defender? Has it obligations? Is it pinned? It it overworked?
Remedy
I assume that SEEing is very much suited for the diagnosis phase. Once you know what is going on in the position, it is time for the remedy. What tools do we have?
- double attack of some sort (fork, discovered attack, skewer)
- exchange
- additional punch (threat)
- step out a threat
- trade off a hostile piece that threatens something
- interference
- blocking
- clearing
- chasing
- targeting
I think that we can gain the most from the remedy department. It is there were the child prodigies make the difference, so is my take.
Let's investigate! What is there to SEE?
What is there to SEE?
ReplyDeleteEVERYTHING!
I think the Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations classification scheme provides some “hints.” There are 10 categories:
1. Annihilation of Defense
2. Blockade
3. Clearance
4. Deflection
5. Discovered attack
6. Pinning
7. Demolition of pawn structure
8. Decoy
9. Interference
10. Double attack
Notice the overlap with your short list of preparatory moves:
interference
blocking
clearing
chasing
targeting
I personally “lump sum” Deflection and Decoy together in a single category because the common idea is Diversion. The direction of the diversion toward a square or away from a square is a minor detail—to me.
It’s “curious” to me that several basic tactical themes/devices (fork, skewer, etc.) are not used to categorize combinations as is usually done in a lot of more elementary chess tactics books. Perhaps the overarching “double attack” includes these and may reflect the influence of GM Averbakh and his theory of contacts and his broad abstract definition of “double attack” to include direct attacks and threats of various orders.
Thx for the list! What I try to do is to bundle these categories in the right way, in order to be able to place them in the right position of the tree of scenarios.
ReplyDeleteA discovered attack and a double attack work by way of doing two things with one move.
Eliminating the defense covers annihilation, blockade, deflection, decoy, magnet and interference. They have in common that they need or come with an additional tempo.
The preparational moves like clearance, chasing and targeting have in common that they need an additional punch too.
Demolition of the pawn structure I consider to be a positional category.
Point 4 Look for particular targets and motifs seems to cover this post. Targets = diagnosis and motifs = remedy.
ReplyDeleteDo you see what I'm trying to do? The tree of scenarios is meant to add standard logic. It is logical to do the diagnosis before the remedy, for instance. The diagnosis prunes the remedies.
ReplyDeleteI think I "SEE" what you are trying to do, but, as usual, I may have missed the point somewhat. Time will tell. . . .
ReplyDeleteAs I was reviewing the Tree of Scenarios, I remembered some dynamic strategic concepts that GM Aagaard posited in his excellent book Thinking Inside the Box that may be applicable. [I posted the entire list with explanations in a comment on 1 JAN 2022.]
The three concepts that seem most applicable to Point 4 Look for particular targets and motifs are:
Include ALL the pieces in the attack.
Attack the weakest square.
Attack the strongest square.
When adding attackers, we need to use the worst placed piece or the piece which is NOT doing something critical elsewhere.
Nimzovich stressed the idea of attacking the weakest square. For example, the weakest “link” in a pawn chain is its base. Ergo, attack the base of the pawn chain.
IM John Watson elucidated the idea of attacking the strongest square. Sometimes, it is a good idea to attack the apex (strongest link) of a pawn chain. Several modern variations in the French Defense attack the head of the pawn chain with f7-f6 because of the liberating effect on the Black pieces. Watson likens it to a prison revolt in which the “guards” are kept busy trying to keep the jailed inmates inside the “prison.” [See “Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch.”]