Hi everybody!
By doing the tactical training, I had the following reasoning. We know that there is a solution hence have to find one which leads to a non-negligible advantage. This of course helps to improve the computation capabilities during a game. However, during a game, we do not know whether there is some tactical move that can lead to an advantage.
Therefore, here come my proposition. We could do a variation of the tactical puzzles (so keep of course the normal one) which works as follows. Each puzzle corresponds to a situation of a game, like before, but some has a combination that "wins" and in some, there is nothing (we could run stockfish or other computer to be sure for example). In order to solve correctly a puzzle, one has two possibilities: play a move or press a button "No obvious win". If we play a move in a "No obvious win", we lose, and if we press "No obvious win" whereas there is a win, we lose as well.
What do you think?
By doing the tactical training, I had the following reasoning. We know that there is a solution hence have to find one which leads to a non-negligible advantage. This of course helps to improve the computation capabilities during a game. However, during a game, we do not know whether there is some tactical move that can lead to an advantage.
Therefore, here come my proposition. We could do a variation of the tactical puzzles (so keep of course the normal one) which works as follows. Each puzzle corresponds to a situation of a game, like before, but some has a combination that "wins" and in some, there is nothing (we could run stockfish or other computer to be sure for example). In order to solve correctly a puzzle, one has two possibilities: play a move or press a button "No obvious win". If we play a move in a "No obvious win", we lose, and if we press "No obvious win" whereas there is a win, we lose as well.
What do you think?