Main
Date: 01 Nov 2008 18:42:50
From: mike bishop
Subject: Definition of "chess tactics"
Everyone knows that forks, discovered attacks and so on come under the
heading of "tactics".

However, what about simple moves, such as a pawn move which attacks a
knight, compelling that knight to move away? Would that classify as a
"tactic"? If not, what heading would it come under?

Thanks,
Mike




 
Date: 01 Nov 2008 13:10:24
From:
Subject: Re: Definition of "chess tactics"
On Nov 1, 2:42=A0pm, mike bishop <[email protected] > wrote:
> Everyone knows that forks, discovered attacks and so on come under the
> heading of "tactics".
>
> However, what about simple moves, such as a pawn move which attacks a
> knight, compelling that knight to move away? =A0Would that classify as a
> "tactic"? =A0If not, what heading would it come under?

Attacking a piece with a pawn is defnitely a tactic, though I'm not
sure that sort of move has ever been given a formal name. I have seen
such moves described as a "one-move threat," "simple threat,"
"elementary threat," "blunt attacking move," that sort of thing. Or
simply "the h-pawn attacks the Bg5" or whatever.
Hans Kmoch, in his book "Pawn Power in Chess" (1959) called a
situation where one pawn might capture another a "lever," but this was
not to be used in reference to a pawn and a piece. Kmoch devised a
large terminology to describe various pawn formations and maneuvers,
but I don't see that he gave any special name to what you ask about.


  
Date: 02 Nov 2008 07:48:26
From:
Subject: Re: Definition of "chess tactics"
On Nov 2, 9:11=A0am, mike bishop <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:10:24 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrot=
e:
> >> Everyone knows that forks, discovered attacks and so on come under the
> >> heading of "tactics".
>
> >> However, what about simple moves, such as a pawn move which attacks a
> >> knight, compelling that knight to move away? =A0Would that classify as=
a
> >> "tactic"? =A0If not, what heading would it come under?
>
> > =A0 Attacking a piece with a pawn is defnitely a tactic, though I'm not
> > sure that sort of move has ever been given a formal name. I have seen
> > such moves described as a "one-move threat," "simple threat,"
> > "elementary threat," "blunt attacking move," that sort of thing. Or
> > simply "the h-pawn attacks the Bg5" or whatever.
> > =A0 Hans Kmoch, in his book "Pawn Power in Chess" (1959) called a
> > situation where one pawn might capture another a "lever," but this was
> > not to be used in reference to a pawn and a piece. Kmoch devised a
> > large terminology to describe various pawn formations and maneuvers,
> > but I don't see that he gave any special name to what you ask about.
>
> Basically, the reason I ask is that I recently read a book which suggests
> that a good strategy in chess is to "keep your opponent helpless by
> preventing any tactical threats". =A0

Ha, much easier said than done. Sounds a lot like the Monty Python
skit telling us how to rid the world of all known diseases: "You jolly
well tell them what to do, make sure they get everything right, so
there will never be diseases again."
Eliminating all threats is virtually impossible in practice, and
playing to avoid all threats often leads to a rather dull game where
you're not making any threats either. Chess is more often a matter of
who "gets there first with the most men," as General Nathan B. Forrest
used to say.

> When I first read that phrase, I assumed
> that "tactical threats" referred to just forks, pins, etc., but after
> reading the whole chapter I've come to the conclusion that it also means
> elementary moves (e.g., the opponent moves his bishop to attack my knight=
).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



  
Date: 02 Nov 2008 14:11:29
From: mike bishop
Subject: Re: Definition of "chess tactics"
On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:10:24 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>> Everyone knows that forks, discovered attacks and so on come under the
>> heading of "tactics".
>>
>> However, what about simple moves, such as a pawn move which attacks a
>> knight, compelling that knight to move away?  Would that classify as a
>> "tactic"?  If not, what heading would it come under?
>
> Attacking a piece with a pawn is defnitely a tactic, though I'm not
> sure that sort of move has ever been given a formal name. I have seen
> such moves described as a "one-move threat," "simple threat,"
> "elementary threat," "blunt attacking move," that sort of thing. Or
> simply "the h-pawn attacks the Bg5" or whatever.
> Hans Kmoch, in his book "Pawn Power in Chess" (1959) called a
> situation where one pawn might capture another a "lever," but this was
> not to be used in reference to a pawn and a piece. Kmoch devised a
> large terminology to describe various pawn formations and maneuvers,
> but I don't see that he gave any special name to what you ask about.

Basically, the reason I ask is that I recently read a book which suggests
that a good strategy in chess is to "keep your opponent helpless by
preventing any tactical threats". When I first read that phrase, I assumed
that "tactical threats" referred to just forks, pins, etc., but after
reading the whole chapter I've come to the conclusion that it also means
elementary moves (e.g., the opponent moves his bishop to attack my knight).