Creating Tactics Situation

There are voluminous sources for how to solve tactics puzzles.  However, I believe what is needed far more than that is to learn how to create a situation that allows you to use a tactic (rather than lucking out in recognizing a situation that already exists.)

So far I haven't been able to find any place that does this.

Can anyone guide me to finding a desciption of how to go about the creation aspect? Or describe how to go about this?

positional understanding

You *can't* create such positions. The best you can do is what Jadulla mentioned: play well, play positionally, select sharper openings, select the best plan(s) for the given situation, give your opponent enough freedom to go astray, and wait for mistakes.

----------

(p. 13)
   Almost at the very start of my chess career, I learned the cruelest les-
son of chess combinations: once you have learned a beautiful combination
you cannot impose it on a game. In fact, in my whole life after playing
tens of thousands of off-hand casual games and about three thousand tour-
nament games, I have never been able to give any opponent Legall's Mate.
That did not stop me from trying. However, I was never successful. Not
once. How cruel is that? Here I was, this young boy of twelve, having
learned this stunning pattern, an I could never duplicate it. Rats! My only
solace was that Seattle's industry could keep me chugging along. In time, I
(p. 14)
came to understand the most important lesson in chess combinations: each
position is unique and will require it own particular combination. It is
hard to make a Royal Fork without a Knight. Back-rank mates become
useless checks after luft is made. I had to adjust myself to the specific
needs of each position. That insight alone was an intimidating thought. I
had to develop an arsenal of combinative patterns and properly use the
right combination for a particular position. The idea was overwhelming.
Aren't there countless positions in chess? Hadn't some clever fellow sug-
gested ten to the twelfth power for all the possible chess moves? It was all
too much for my tiny cranium. It would never work.
   The above thinking was a lucky happenstance for me. I was right. The
memorization alone would be too much. The effort too great, I would in-
evitably fail. I needed help. I had to make a short cut, and many as well. I
would have to try to classify the most common combinations as best I
could. Then I would not have to memorize all the possible combinations;
rather I would just have to master the basic patterns and look for the tell-
tale signposts. Breaking down combinations into groups and learning their
basic patterns meant that suddenly the workload didn't seem overwhelm-
ing after all. In fact, it seemed straightforward and fun as well. I would
just learn a slew of patterns, mix them up to suit the needs of a given posi-
tion an make the combination work for the specifics of each position!
Presto. Instant chess mastery. In the meantime, I continued to lose most of
my games.

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.

I'll try to get a library copy of that book, thanks chessmicky. By now I've developed a pretty good sense of when a position is begging for a combination, but I haven't tried to analyze that "sense" well enough to program it. Some things that would be indicators: more attacking pieces than defending pieces (easy to program), pieces that can quickly join an attack (harder to program), uncoordination of pieces, amount of king protection, number of possible responses in the moves leading up to the position, the presence of forcing moves (I figured out a way to program this in approximation), themes such as pawn promotion or back rank mate (not too hard to program).

Yes, thanks from me too, chessmickey.  That book is available on Amazon and sounds interesting so I bought it.

Probably over my head, but I'll try.

I appreciate your comments, Sqod, but I'm not totally convinced that creating the conditions is not possible. Perhaps we are defining creation differently.  I am sure one can't create something that is foolproof, but I can't quite accept that there aren't moves that can influence response moves that might set up the necessary conditions for a tactical combination.  Maybe what I am thinking about is simply making moves that are likely to create a blunder which would allow for the right kind of tactical moves. I'll see if the "book" gives me some ideas. It is probably well beyond my rather feeble capacity for understanding , but it can't hurt to try.

Yes, of course I realize the truth of the concept that one cannot necessarily  "force" tactics on the opponent.  From that concept you have to accept that you also cannot force a victory. That also requires that the opponent's moves are part of the equation. However, victories DO occur (although not very often in my case). Theoretically, I assume, every game would end in a draw if neither player made a mistake.

So all I am trying to accomplish by my desire to "create" a tactical combination is to find a way to create a likelihood that my opponent will make a mistake that will allow my moves to be successful. I really can't see that that shouldn't be something to strive for.  Of course it won't work every time, but for most of us it might be possible for it to succeed at least some of the time. Isn't that reasonable? And worth striving for?

candewbetter,

I think we agree, which is why I mentioned allowing your opponent enough freedom to make a mistake. A good one is leaving your row of 3 unadvanced pawns susceptible to BxRP, whereupon you can trap and (usually) win the bishop starting with P-N3. I fell for that, my computer falls for that, and even Bobby Fischer fell for that amateurish trap during the 1972 world championship against Spassy. Good players leave traps all the time, so maybe we could add that refinement to general advice for everyone: leave traps for your opponent if they do not cause you harm (in lost tempi, positional compromise, etc.).

----------

(p. 136)
   After the game Euwe showed me a cute trap he might have
played for--and almost fainted when I fell into it! The line arises
after 32 . . . K-B3; 33 R-R5, B-Q5 and he asked, "What
do you do now?" I looked a few seconds and played 34 B-K5?
whereupon he uncorked R-B4! which leads to a draw. Upon
reconsideration, however, simply 34 K-K2 wins. It's these
tidbits that you remember best.

(p. 203)
   I was considering the blunder 17 B-N5?, R-N3; 18 P-KR4,
P-Re; 19 Q-R5, but Trifunovich seemed too quiet all of a
sudden, and I suspected he had tuned in on my brain waves. At the
last minute I saw 19 . . . Q-K1! wins; for if 20 BxB, RxP+!;
21 KxR, QxQ.

Fischer, Bobby. 1969. My 60 Memorable Games. New York: Simon and Schuster.

----------

(p. 17)
   It is not enough to know that combinations arise from forced
moves; it is also necessary to show why the possibilities for
combinations exist. For example, it is very seldom possible to
mate the enemy king quickly if it is defended by pawn cover,
has many pieces nearby for defense, and has plenty of room to
maneuver. In such a position it makes no practical sense to
search for a mating combination. But if the enemy king is
confined and has few defenders and weak pawn cover, then
experienced players will know that a mating combination may
be possible. The same situation occurs for other types
of combinations.

(p. 18)
   If there is a combination in the position, three things must be
present: motif, idea, and technique.

   At first we become aware of the motifs that exist in the
position. On the basis of this awareness we seek a combinative
solution (the idea). Then we calculate the technical part--the
forced play.

Palatnik, Sam, and Lev Alburt. 2013. Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player. New York, NY: Chess Information & Research Center.

what works for me for creating tactic siuation is to bring my pieces to squares there they do most. rooks should have open squares. bishops should have long diagonals and so on. knights should have good outpost.

if all pieces are placed at the best squares you are likely to get a tactical shot.

furthermore don't move you pawns to advanced. otherwise they might block a tactic. you can't move your pawns backwards. it is also good to have a extra tempo to waist by moving a pawn from h2 to h3.

What you say makes sense, bobbyDK, but I am not sure what you mean by "options squares."  could you explain?

lol I most have typed to fast I meant open squares.

Technically speaking, you can "create" the chance to play a specific tactic, but your opponent would have to be quite cooperative. Most of the time, one sees tactics.

as you are above 2000 I guess most of your opponents can prevent tactic  moves before it happens. however I guess most players at around 1600 will not see the tactic coming.

You took the words right out of my mouth, bobbyDK. Additionally, if one accepts Synphai's premiss then highly rated players such as himself would almost never lose because of a tactic. I'm sure those folks secumb much less frequently than I do, but I think that is not really relevant to this discussion.

my opponent was 1400

Here’s my suggestion in this 5yr old thread:

1. pick an opening to get good at.

2. Go to Bill Harvey’s website or go on amazon and see if he has any books of puzzles based on your opening.

3. Review the games up to the point to the tactic and see how they got there 

4. Try to recreate.

Im seeing that tactics in the najdorf often happen when people are too aggressive in the opening before they have the lead in development; when they leave pieces undetected, when they move the same pice multiple times in the opening.

so I think that you can either learn from his puzzles to create opportunities or you will need to recognize your opponents mistakes

I think an important component is piece activity.  You strive for good piece activity, and then the tactics come.

From losing against computer 18 alot, I would say, try not to hang pieces, I know it's very hard, but when developing, make sure that all pieces protect each other, lack of pieces activity usually leads to someone or a Computer to pin your pieces. Getting pin, double attacked and pin sucks, best way you would say tactics happen in a game, is usually when you have a good position, one which I never have😢😢😢

Or play the Scandinavian, you should see tactics alot. With that opening, I honestly hate that opening because it's to hard to play against.