In assessing a position, I start by using the common "Checks, Captures, Threats" (CCT) framework to try to identify a solution. However, sometimes CCT doesn't lead me to a solution, so I move on to thinking about specific tactical themes such as forks, pins, trapped pieces, and so on, but I haven't been scrolling through the tactical themes in any systematic way, until now. I recently started using a method that uses the easy-to-remember acronym FATPIGS:
F - Forks
A - Attack Discovery (also known as Discovered Attack; moving a piece to reveal a previously blocked attack)
T - Trapped Piece (attacking a piece that has limited squares to move to)
P - Pins and Skewers (taking advantage of piece alignment on ranks, files, or diagonals)
I - Imbalance of Attackers and Defenders (for instance, finding a piece that has only 2 defenders, but 3 attackers)
G - Guard Removal (also known as Removing the Defender)
S - Sacrifices (tactics involving giving up material for long-term gain)
I find that the FATPIGS method gives me a mental checklist to systematically look for the most common tactical solutions to a problem. It seems to work best on openings and middle games, and not quite as good in endgame puzzles, where pawn and king moves are often the correct solution.
I'm sure there are tactical themes that could be added, subtracted or changed, but the FATPIGS method has been pretty useful to me. The next time you are stuck on a puzzle, think about FATPIGS and see if it helps. Suggestions about improving it are welcome!
And do you keep to your protocol systematically?
don't you get distracted by the variations or candidates (even if not good) that your intuition might see faster than your diligence about the protocol would have it?
I never can stick to any external protocol. when ideas keep bubbling (even if naive and silly).
maybe this is like meditation, what matters is the combing not the result. keeping going back to the protocol.
or maybe it is a good scaffold to keep trying, just having it as skeleton to start with gives at least a chance not to go blind into the puzzle.... I think we are not all equipped to be efficient with systems like this. For one I would ask why forks first....
There is no reason why Forks are first, I simply needed a memorable acronym to help me target each of the tactical themes.
I don't necessarily go through the protocol of considering each theme at the start of every puzzle, it is more of a guide to help me when I have been staring at a puzzle for several minutes and making no progress. Without a guide, my mind darts around from one tactical theme to another in no particular order, and it is not an efficient use of time. I usually give a puzzle a few minutes of this aimless searching (to see if my natural intuition can discover the answer), then I employ the CCT + FATPIGS method which usually gets me the answer.
I see. thanks. I understand the context. When using healthy mix for example and not clear what objectives might be expected. too many possibilities.
So somehow you made a sub list of the puzzle system themes, those that matter for on-board decisions. perhaps some frequency of presence behind it.
I will try that. in some way.
overloading, guard removal, deflection, even attraction seem to be overlapping themes to me by the way.
but i get that it is most visible from starting position by looking a interactions already present on board. the network of them.
Pawn76 this acronym although useful in context is a crutch that you should throw away. The point of doing puzzles is to become faster at pattern recognition. If you get stuck just go back to basics and examine all legal moves and establish candidates.
@Firegoat7 said in #6:
> Pawn76 this acronym although useful in context is a crutch that you should throw away. The point of doing puzzles is to become faster at pattern recognition. If you get stuck just go back to basics and examine all legal moves and establish candidates.
Well, that may be an aspect. but that depends on current chess mapping level of individual. if in new territory, pattern discovery or acquisition precedes recognition. That may be the problem with too many psychological studies about chess, the focus on accomplished experienced doing fine grain discovery (imperceptible through communication, and experimental means I would say), and which mostly can be tested only for recognition.
little effort been made to study the cognition in development. so we are stuck with just devote as much time as you can to headless random experience. that seems like raw claim. should we let it be untouched.
or I am unaware of those efforts. and would love to be course corrected in my hypotheses. using unexpected wording for better attention (sorry for fast readers).
'FATPIGS' seems more of abuse than systematic approach!
<Comment deleted by user>
I am not sure about that. Striking the memory, is something personal. The op might want to propose a scheme rather than an acronym in particular. Also the themes word choices could be using what lichess preferred already to be seamless with the puzzle system here. Well I am one to speak about word choices.
I agree not the best choice of acronym. but it does show how memory might work. not very rational... or nuanced.
