Originally posted by gritno, it means every move that give a check to the king. especially the ones that sacrifice a piece.
Does "check all checks" mean check each piece that could be attacked - not just the king?
Grit
it doesn't mean you should always check when you can, but that you should always look at each of those moves with special care.
but you should of course make sure all of your pieces are safe as well.
Originally posted by grit"Check all checks" literally means to look for only checks on the king. However, Greenpawn said more than just that. He said,
Does "check all checks" mean check each piece that could be attacked - not just the king?
Grit
"Check all Checks is looking at every check on the board home and away.
Even the crazy silly ones. You will get ideas and stop blunders. "
This is the part where you look only for checks on the kings.
"Then you do a scan for unprocted pieces home away to see if there is
any way you can profit from this.
Or is your opponent about to lift an unprotected bit for nothing. "
This is Greenpawn's equivalent of looking for all captures and threats (meaning checking for each piece that could be attacked (or threatened). And when GP said "home and away", he means looking at your pieces and your opponent's pieces (how your opponent can respond). And "bits" means pieces. (I'm pretty sure. )
Cool. Am I now an official Chandler language translator?
🙂
Originally posted by TacticalJokeThat could be dozens of potential moves each move. You would need lots of time just to do a superficial survey. I'm not sure that's realistic for most people, but if you make it work, that's all that matters I suppose.
Personally, I think you should look at every legal move your opponent has in general.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIt takes around three seconds most of the time. I'm not talking about calculating deeply — just having a glance at the opponent's legal moves.
That could be dozens of potential moves each move. You would need lots of time just to do a superficial survey. I'm not sure that's realistic for most people, but if you make it work, that's all that matters I suppose.
Originally posted by TacticalJokeNot worth it. I'm guessing the typical position has 20-50 legal moves. Let's take a nice average and say 35. To glance at each move will take you about two minutes. But what if you want to see a little deeper, say checking all your opponent's possible responses? Then you have 1225 moves to check, which will take you over an hour, if you spend 3 seconds on each one. 3 half moves deep? 2000 hours.
It takes around three seconds most of the time. I'm not talking about calculating deeply — just having a glance at the opponent's legal moves.
This "brute force" meathod is how computers play. They can analyse millions of positions in a second, and even so, GMs still stand a chance. Why? Because humans, unlike computers, know that most of the legal moves are useless, and don't bother going down any lines but the key ones.
Originally posted by clandarkfireUhh, I'm not saying 3 seconds on each move. I'm talking about a 1-ply scan for White, followed by a 1-ply scan for Black. It takes around 6 seconds total (3 seconds for each side — NOT 3 seconds for each move!).
Not worth it. I'm guessing the typical position has 20-50 legal moves. Let's take a nice average and say 35. To glance at each move will take you about two minutes. But what if you want to see a little deeper, say checking all your opponent's possible responses? Then you have 1225 moves to check, which will take you over an hour, if you spend 3 seconds st of the legal moves are useless, and don't bother going down any lines but the key ones.
Sure, in some lines you'll go deeper than 1 ply, but that's what you'd be doing in any case (or, at least, I would hope so).
Originally posted by gritdoing those tactical puzzles will take you a long way with that. or going through the games of morphy.
Wormwood,I Don't know how exactly to check for pieces that may be sacrificed. How do you know if and how your opponent will do that?
As Al Pacino said in Scent of a Woman "I'm in the dark here."
Grit
but basically you just look for any legal moves that deliver a check, even if it at first looks like it just gives the opponent a free piece.
Thanks wormwood. I have The First Book of Morphy but have not yet worked with it. And the tactics puzzles you refer to, are the mate in ones on Chess Tempo OK?
I don't know what my guru at the Bates Motel will say about any of this. Have not heard anything from him.
I think I will enjoy Morphy, don't you?
Grit
Originally posted by wormwoodIf I may be so bold as to interject myself, I have some rules that work for me when looking for potential sacrifices:
doing those tactical puzzles will take you a long way with that. or going through the games of morphy.
but basically you just look for any legal moves that deliver a check, even if it at first looks like it just gives the opponent a free piece.
1. When I have pieces in the vicinity of the opposing king (or there are pieces around mine);
2. When there are x-ray attacks on the board which are blocked by pawns or pieces, and a sacrifice could open those lines;
3. When the king and heavy pieces are next to each other or on the same colors where they could be forked, skewered, or pinned after a sacrifice;
4. When there are well-advanced pawns that are blocked, but would be unstoppable if unblocked by a sacrifice; and
5. (More vaguely) when the position on the board is inconvenient for my pieces, and an investment of material would positively change the position. For me, these are the hardest types of sacrifices to see ahead of time before my opponent plays them. However, if you know the ideas behind your opening, you are better able to anticipate them as there are thematic ones against which you can prepare.
I hope this helps a little.
And playing through Morphy's games is sage advice- it's like a crash course in tactics and a history lesson in chess all at once.
Paul
Originally posted by grityeah, begin with easy problems, and hammer them like there's no tomorrow. slowly you'll begin to recognize the building blocks of tactical motifs, so you'll know instantly what to look for in a new position. the second step is to juggle the building blocks in your head, find the correct order. but you need to learn to recognize the blocks first before you can juggle them.
Thanks wormwood. I have The First Book of Morphy but have not yet worked with it. And the tactics puzzles you refer to, are the mate in ones on Chess Tempo OK?
I don't know what my guru at the Bates Motel will say about any of this. Have not heard anything from him.
I think I will enjoy Morphy, don't you?
Grit
put in the scent of a woman context: you must first teach/train your brain to see the 8x8 board (recognize the patterns), and only then can you worry about what to do with what's on the board (calculate).
one more thing. - anything and everything you learn about chess, it's not nearly enough to read about it or watch once or twice. that will not stick, you'll forget it in a week. -instead you need to do it on a board over and over and over again. a hundred times, thousands of times. until you have it down cold, no matter how tired, drunk or dead you are. and even then, refresh it once in a while.
no real progress happens quickly or without a grueling amount of work. there are no shortcuts.
It sounds like you're asking the same question as you did in the last thread but just in a different way.
I looked through your games in the last thread and I can tell you what you're missing is an understanding of mobility. Most of positional play deals in some degree with mobility.
Look at your game with toocold after move 10:
Your light bishop doesnt have a single square it can move to without being captured.
Your dark bishop only has one square.
Neither your knight nor your queen can move without losing material because the knight is pinned to the queen.
Your queen's rook can only move to one square and your king's rook only has two squares.
All your pieces combined only have 6 squares they can move to without losing material.
You're not going to see a lot of tactics when your pieces can only move to 6 squares. Think about it, what makes a queen worth 9 pawns but a bishop or knight only worth 3? The answer is that the queen can move to more squares. The more squares a piece can move to the more powerful it becomes. You have a tendency to block your own pieces and play cramped positions. If you want to play more tactical positions you need to work on making your pieces more mobile.
So how do you that ?
First, in the opening work at controlling the center. This goes back to what I was saying before. The side that has better control of the center will naturally have better mobility.
Second, work at maximizing your pieces. Rooks need open and semi-open files or they're no better than pawns (and open files are rare in your games. ) Bishops need long unblocked diagonals and are best when near the center. Knights arent going to do much unless they have outposts. An outpost is a square in the opponents position that you can move the knight and it cant be immediately chased away. An example is in that same game with Toocold when he plays 16...Nf4. Queens are like both rooks and bishops and function best when near the center. Actually, all pieces function best near the center which is why its so important to control it.
I could give you a long explanation of planning but I'm not going to. The best book I know of is Silman's but really you dont need to read that until you're about 1900. Keep your plans simple and just focus on making your pieces as mobile as possible and you'll do fine. If you're not sure if you're doing it right you can do what I did above and count out the number of squares your pieces can move to.
This is what De la Maza said about planning in the book/article Rapid Chess Improvement:
“Step 5's "implement a plan" is the only step that is not self-explanatory. I
implement very simple plans (as opposed to Silman, Kotov, and Pachman-like
plans) that improve the probability that there will be a tactical shot. These plans
include:
1. Improve the mobility of the pieces.
2. Prevent the opponent from castling.
3. Trade off pawns.
4. Keep the queen on the board”
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf
If you do that you should see tactical opportunities increase. The other thing I would add is to pick a point in the opponents position that you can attack. Generally for me thats the king but if there just isnt an attack on the king possible I usually pick out a weak pawn or something and build an attack around that. Sometimes, my goal is to win that and sometimes I'm just trying to move their pieces away to another part of the board. Doing that will give you something to focus on and coordinate your pieces. Lastly, if you dont have any idea what to do then just pick the least mobile of all your pieces and try to improve that piece's mobility.
So to summarize, planning in the opening should be around those same three opening principles that we've been talking about before and that that book talks about (center, development, king safety). All of that is covered in detail in that book. As you get into the middle-game focus on improving the mobility of your pieces and try to focus on something to attack. If you do that you should be way ahead of the people you're playing against.