Reading "predator at the chess board" and wonder if calculating backwards is advisable?

The page says:

"good example of how to work backwards from a tactical idea to several exchanges needed to make it work."

I see how the tactics work and understand the concept of distraction/attraction and leads to forking tactics, but I start from the beginning and go through the moves and possible board changes from start to finish. The thing I don't t do is "work backwards".

My question is whether or not I should work backwards because it's beneficial or it's not any different?
I don't want to be missing out on this whole backward calculation idea if it's helpful. The first time Ive read this, its not mentioned before this page bottom paragraph (see link) Any thoughts on working things out backwards at all?

https://www.chesstactics.org/the-double-attack/the-knight-fork/distracting-the-guard/2_1_5_8.html

best advice is to stay away from that site, as the design gives you eye cancer

to add something constructive i think the author just found a complicated way to ask "is there a way to make this tactic work" (€: i dont know the book, just talking about the link you provided). and in this case, its not, thats probably whats confusing you.

take pawn with bishop coz its free is the takeaway (coz if opponent sac the exchange he doesnt have anything to protect the past pawn).

Not sure what you mean by calculating backwards. Deeply calculating interesting lines is however very advicable.

Oh my, I wonder if someone would discover solving on a tactic book upside-down.

@Mees20

I am not the one saying about "working backwards" the author suggests it. I was asking why would anybody do that and us it any use?

The link shows what the author means. Working backwards seems wrong to me because you must predict the last position correctly to donthat and that requires working forward.

Of course calculating lines us advisable but why does the link talk of working backwards? Seems like a bad idea but I asked because I'm only a begginer.

I thought maybe I was missing some good advice but I don't think the advice is any good.

@TartakowerCK

Yeah it's a great source for learning about tactics. Everything I've read has been useful sort from the working backwards idea.

Apart from that this section on knights is very interesting. Now I can spot potential forksnthat maybe possible to force the opponent into, force forks by attraction\disraction. Before I only spotted forks when they were just a move away.

Now I know to look for pieces on same colour square as the knight and other ways to do quick scans. It teaches well how to force pieces to those squares or removes pieces from guarding the squares.

But about working backwards..... nah, don't get it.

@Rookitiki
The idea is to get the rooks. The taking the pawn is done to get access to the black rook and eventually removing rook from guarding e7 which allows ke7+ forking the second rook.

I don't think it's about the passed pawn. When they take your bishop they have an unguarded passed pawn which as a bonus will be attacked when you take the c7 rook after the fork is done. The takeaway is supposed to be removing the guard and getting a rook a certain square. The fact that they have their pawn under attack after the tactcs is just a nice bonus not mentioned in the article so good spot.

Obviously once you try to from the Initial position & probably before it you see the Rook on c6 & are trying to make ne7+ work unless Black just played Rc6 ? Then you see the possibility of Ne7+ working & work backwards from there to forwards yes ? Otherwise you would not be able to explain thinking 'forward' to what end by playing Bxd4 without considering the fork on e7 First or Last ?

Another way of saying it is ... If Rc6 ? Then Ne7+ but it doesn't work unless i make it work MAYBE ... ahhh yes it works ! Bxd4 !