Exeter Chess Club: Practical Tactics
- Introduction
- The elements of combination
- Sight of the board
- Combinational vision
- Varieties of error
- Candidate moves
- The calculation of variations
- Good practice and further reading
- Bibliography
- Net reading
Introduction
"It is a mistake to think that combination is solely a metter of talent, and that it cannot be acquired"-- RETI
[Concidentally this document was followed by a useful UseNet post by NM Dan Scoones.]
The way it works is this:
My mum and dad taught me how to play chess, and when I was about 9
I went to the school chess club. I sat down to play a small boy,
took the Black pieces and was mated in four moves (Scholar's Mate).
To the best of my recollection I have never fallen for it since,
and while I can't ever remember perpetrating that particular
sequence on anyone else, I have delivered mate on f7 a number of
times.
Learning and applying tactics is just that: you learn to recognise a pattern, you see it coming if someone tries it on you, and you can apply it in similar positions in your own games. In fact, once you know the patterns, a lot of the calculation comes pretty easily.
"Those chess lovers who ask me how many moves I usually calculate in advance, when making a combination, are always astonished when I reply, quite truthfully, 'as a rule not a single one' "-- Richard RETI.
It used to be thought - perhaps because of statements like this, and a little early psychological research - that there wasn't much difference in the abilities of strong and weak players at analysis: rather, it was all about judgement and experience. There might not be a lot of difference between GMs and IMs, but there is increasing evidence that among we club players, there are large and important differences [see Simon Webb's panel tests]. So, the patterns and judgements are important, but you must also train yourself to analyse. Sir Peter Medawar once remarked, rather testily:
"the spread of secondary and latterly of tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytic thought".[A sentiment to be found in his splendid demolition of Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man, first printed in Mind, then collected in The Art of the Soluble]
No less a tribute may be paid to the editors at Batsford and Cadogan and Chess Digest: there is a population of chessplayers who know about mysterious Rook moves, Super-Quart Grips, the Inverse Phalanx, and the latest wrinkles in the Sicilian, but who cannot reliably spot three-move tactics or win a Rook Ending. This piece is dedicated to the first of these failings.
The elements of combination
A combination is a forcing sequence, often involving a temporary sacrifice, which results in an advantage - checkmate, win of material or a winning positional bind.Here's a nice example, which I think is not out of most players' reach: have a go at solving it (White to move and win) before reading on.
Becker-Jung, Eberstadt-Bensheim, 1948
(wKh1,Qc3,Ne2,e3,Bd3,Ra1,f2,Pa2,b2,c4,e5,f4,g3,h2; bKf7,Qd7,Nc6,g6,Bh3,Ra8,h8,Pa7,b7,c7,d6,f6,g7,h5)
                  |
The different combinational themes are often called motifs.
The theme or motif of this combination is the fork. There is almost no way you can find the combination in this position if you have not seen this pattern before.
First, we examine the position for pointers. The Black pieces are not very well coordinated, and the Black King and Queen seem almost in reach - for example, if we had protection for e6, we could think about e5-e6+ winning the Queen. In fact, f4-f5 provides that protection, so 1. f5 (Knight moves) 2. e6+ looks excellent, except that Knight moves 1...Ng6xe5, but it starts to look as though we might be on for something here.
More details: we can, by Bxg6+, bring the Black King a little closer, and check it by f4-f5. In fact, we can check it immediately by e5-e6. Maybe some combination of these ideas might allow us to lure Black pieces to e6 and g6, and fork them by f4-f5.
So, this fork becomes the idea of our combination.
Next, the combination must now be calculated and the correct move order sorted out.
We might try 1. Bxg6+ Kxg6 2. e6 when if Black takes it 2...Qxe6, we win with 3. f5+, but Black can safely sidestep with 2...Qe7.
Purdy coined the splendid term smite: you must
learn to examine smiting moves, checks and captures. These
are the most forcing and the key to starting most combinations.
With this in mind we can reconsider our combination:
the starting move 1. e6+ is perhaps surprising,
but once we consider the move at all we can see that is it very
forcing, and after 1...Kxe6 or
1...Bxe6 we can play 2. f5(+)
winning a piece.
So, Black seems obliged to play 1. e6+ Qxe6. Now
again, 2. f5 fails to 2...Qxe3.
Humph.
The forcing sequence 2. Bxg6+ Kxg6 3. f5+ Bxf5
seems almost to fizzle out, but then (aha!) 4.
Nf4+ forks King and Queen. Missed anything? No, all looks
OK, so, Black has to lose a piece, probably by 1...Bxe6
when a couple of Pawns will be partial compensation.
So, the elements of a combination are motif, idea, and calculation. You don't really change gear from one to the other when trying to come up with a combination in practice, but you do need to work on each separately if you are to improve.
How did your attempt match up to my account of the solution? Missed the idea? Missed a defence? Muddled the move order? Hopefully what I describe below can improve your performance in each aspect. Even if that one seemed totally beyond you I'll at least show you how such a standard can be approached.
"A thorough understanding of the typical mating combinations makes the most complicated sacrificial combinations leading up to them not only not difficult, but almost a matter of course."-- TARRASCH
You must know all these motifs:
- K - knight forks
- L - last rank
- M - mating pattern
- N - network nobbled (Nterference)
- O - overloading
- P - pins
- Q - queening
- R - retreat
- S - sacrifice at castle gates
- T - two for the price of one [double attack]
- U - undermining (removing the guard)
- U2 - unmasking (discovery)
- V - vulnerable f7
- W - weakening King's-side
- X - X-ray (skewer)
Once you are aware of these motifs you can apply them in your own games. See also Combinational vision below.
"The technician, whose vocabulary has been doubled by Dr. Euwe, will find that White could have saved his soul by a desperado combination. Had this failure anything to do with the fact that Dr. Euwe's terminology was not yet existent at that time!?"-- Reinfeld, to Thomas-Euwe, Carlsbad 1929.
Sight of the board
By which I mean, how deep can you analyse without losing track? The ability to play a game blindfold isn't that good a guide - I can remember a game where both players couldn't "see" that they could play Qa5xQh5 (or Qh5xQa5) for free! Playing a game blindfold against a computer is a test, though, and so is solving problems without moving the pieces. On a good day I can do six-move problems. I'm aiming at seven/eight. (But why do I still make one-move blunders? See below!)You can get this far solving positions one move deep, two moves deep, three moves, four moves, five moves and six moves deep. They are all knight forks, if you want a hint, although other motifs may make an appearance.
knight fork combination (1), one move deep, 1997
(wKe3,Nd5,Rc4,Pf4; bKe8,Nd7,Ra8,Pb6)
  |
KFC (2) chernev/reinfeld, 1949
(wKg1,Qa4,Ng3,Pf2; bKg7,Qg4,Nd4)
   |
This 'decoy' of the Queen onto a forking square is very common in combinations with a Knight Fork motif.
KFC (3), c/r, 1949
(wKg1,Qd3,Nf4,Ra1,f1,Pa2,b2,c2,d4,g3,h4; bKg8,Qe7,Nc6,e4,Bd7,Rc8,Pa7,b7,c7,d6,g4,h7)
 |
1. Nd5 Qe6 2. Qxe4 Qxe4 3. Nf6+ 1-0 Black has better moves than 2...Qxe4, but if Black cannot recapture on e4, White wins a piece.
KFC (4) zukertort - englisch, london, 1883
(wKg2,Qb3,Nd5,Pc7,f3,g3,h2; bKe8,Qc6,Ne6,Pa7,f6,g7,h6)
|
1. Qb5 Qxb5 2. c8=Q+ Kf7 3. Qxe6+ Kxe6 4. Nc7+ Kd7 5. Nxb5 1-0
KFC (5) kofman-sakketi, corr., 1948
(wKh1,Nc4,Rd1,e1,Pa2,b2,h3; bKc8,Qg3,Bd4,Pa7,b7,c7,f7,h7)
 |
1. Re8+ Kd7 2. Re3 Qg7 3. Rxd4+ Qxd4 4. Rd3 Qxd3 5. Ne5+ 1-0
Remember, this was a correspondence game, so time wasn't the issue - despair was.
KFC (6) schlechter-mieses, st.petersburg, 1909
(wKg1,Qc4,Nd1,e2,Rc1,f3,Pa3,b2,d4,e5,g2,h2; bKc8,Qg5,Ng4,Bd6,Rd7,h8,Pa7,b7,c7,e6,f7,g7,h7)
|
[3.Nf2 Qxh2+ 4.Kf1 Nxe5 5.Qc5 Nxf3 6.gxf3 -+;
3.h3 Qe1+ 4.Rf1 Qxf1+ 5.Kxf1 Rxd1+ 6.Rxd1 Ne3+ -+]
The other resource, besides these tactical problems, is simple chess studies: at their best they can make you pay close attention to the geometry of the board, like this one:
chekhover, QN v Q, 1996
(wKa1,Qh1,Nf3; bKe4,Qb8)
|
1. Ne5+
In an actual game, you just play this straight away as the best
winning attempt because there are so many ways for Black to go
wrong. But for practice, can you follow it to the finish? These
open-field combinations can be hard to keep track of, because of
the apparently great number of choices at each turn.
1... Ke3
[1.... Kf4 2. Qf3+ Kg5 3. Qg4+ Kh6 4. Qg6#]
[1... Kf5 2. Qh3+ Ke4
or [2... Kg5 3. Qg4+]
3. Qf3+ Kd4 4. Nc6+]
2. Qe1+ Kf4 3. Qf2+ Kg5 4. Qg3+ Kf5 5. Qg4+ Kxe5 6. Qg3+ Kf5 7. Qxb8 1-0
Combinational vision
Combinational vision is a product of experience and imagination, both of which broaden the chess mind.Experience: Once you have seen something, you might be able to implement an analogous idea in your own games. This is more than knowing the motifs; I mean you should continue to broaden your experience of combinations by examining new examples. An example from my own modest practice: I have known about knight forks for ages (ever since I kept finding them arriving on c7, checking and forking Ke8/Ra1). But once I had seen the famous finish of a Petrosian-Spassky game (see the entry for Petrosian in the Style section of Canon), I could see the same thing going on in my own game.
This rather reminds me of the old psychological tests based on embedded figures; finding combinations seems a bit like that.
Imagination: I used to think that the creative imagination was something mysterious and intangible, which could neither be described nor trained. While there may always be something elusive about artistic creation, some thinking by people like Liam Hudson and Daniel Dennett gave me some cause to hope. Creativity is not a simple product of unfathomable inspiration, but a result of firstly, generating lots of (mostly junky) ideas, and then weeding them out to discover the ones that work. If this is true of the expressive arts, then it surely also applies to chess, where the ideas have such concrete prompts on the board, and the selection of the ideas that work can be put to the simple test of analysis.
Put simply, this suggests that someone like Tal can come up with great ideas because they come up with loads of ideas, good, bad and indifferent, and then can select the great one. The problem with most of us is not that we are failing to come up with enough good ideas, but we are failing to come up with enough ideas, full stop. Our ability to spot combinations is limited by our tunnel vision, considering only a few moves of a stereotyped nature, and not having the habit of looking at every thing once, no matter how foolish at first sight. Developing imagination, then, is not a matter of learning how to do something terribly magical, but to some extent involves putting aside what you think you know (retreating pieces is bad, putting your Queen en prise is bad) and considering moves that only very good players - or very bad players! - look at.
Varieties of error
The way it is supposed to work is: But we also see:- A tactic appears for you: you miss it.
- A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss it.
- A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.
- A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.
- A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but stop analysis too soon.
A tactic appears for you: you get it right.
The idea is easy, but can you analyse it to a finish?Regis,D - Lane,P (1994)
 |
Ah, if only it was all like that...
A tactic appears for you: you miss it.
Regis,D. - Aston,P (1994)
|
[21. Qe6 Qd8 22. c6 or even 21. Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Rd1]
...1-0
Patzer sees a check... It didn't affect the outcome in the end but White had to start all over again to build up another combination.
A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss
it.
Oh, how many times... asleep, overconfident or confused, we ignore
our opponent's best reply.
Regis,D - Stirling,A (1984)
1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nf4
|
There are lots of opening traps like that: White bites off more than he can chew.
A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.
Regis,D. -Stooks, Charles (1993)
|
19... Nc6??
[19... Qb7]
20. Nh3 Qg4 21. Ng5 1-0
Simple over-optimism: I didn't consider 20...g5.
A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.
Ward,D - Regis,D (1994)
|
[34. Kh2! ...when it's all a bit tricky!]
34... Qe8 35. Re6 Qxa4 36. Re7+ Kg6 37. Rxc7 Qd1+ 0-1
The tactic was obvious enough, what I failed to assess was how good White's pieces would be in the ending.
A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but stop analysis too soon.
Wilcox, RJ (1830) - Regis, D (1945) (3) [B06] Paignton Challengers, 1996
|