I'm grinding some tactics right now and today it got me thinking that while I'm getting better at profitting from enemies' deteriorating positions the computer never fails to surprise me with moves to lose the least possible. I was wondering if finding the best move to lose less is even a different thing than finding the best move to attack and how someone would approach studying that... Maybe it is all the same? Maybe it isn't? What do you think?
if your gonna definately lose material finding which loses less is very important, why lose a queen or rook if you can throw a bishop or night under the bus... sometimes you can only attack so much and after the attack you may find your worse , sometimes youll be better depends on the dice roll or calculation you can only give your opponent so much before you lose everythingm ideally youd give them nothing but we arent pros just try not to let peices hang or get back ranked
It is all the same. It takes an objective attitude. Some players are good at finding tactics that are favourable to them, but blind for tactics that can harm them, some are the opposite.
at the end of the day both involve objective calculation. what makes the difference though is how well and calmly you shift from an attacking mindset to a defending one. you have to be able to calmly make mistakes. beginners will panic and lose everything shortly after they lose a pawn or piece, where as masters will reassess their strengths and play off that. the part about avoiding material loss is all calculation though. And then visualization for how to play down material.
hope this helps
You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!