yes puzzles can have multiple uses.
and now a plug of mine:
(in more than one "multiple" sense, including year past going over failed ones even if solved after a month or less, note to lichess puzzle failure history feature that used to be there .. lucky me i remember).
@#1 so you basically look for the main tactical themes. I like that method.
I think it’s best to count material first, as others have said if you are down in material then you know it’s going to be a mating pattern or a forced draw. Next look at opponents threats as it will assist in the type of moves that you can make. Then going in order of the most forcing moves first, checks, captures, attacks and improvement of pieces.
@Meriten said in #14:
> First: Count pieces
> If there is a great imbalance in puzzles then you have to look for a mate. That excludes a lot of options.
Yes-I'm surprised only 2 people mention that-- I also check if the opponent has overwhelming threats. In those cases it's a critical position and you can pare down the moves considered.
My system [which is no system] is to 1. check if it's a critical position and if so look at forcing moves until I find something, 2. if not critical, I look at typical tactics in the structure on the board, and if that fails I 3. look at the same with reordered moves, then if that fails I 4. start looking systematically: undefended pieces, pieces that can be lured into forking distance, pieces on the same diagonal or row/column, then sometimes I see stuff I missed previously.
When I computer analyze my blitz games I usually find 1 & sometimes 2 tactics that I missed. I also find that I spend too much time in steps 2&3 and would do better to move to 4 a bit sooner. But, it's a human process so I expect to err reliably and often! -Bill
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.