New tag suggestion

[glennwilson]

An example of a another possible tag "Defense" (a bad name for the concept, I suppose):
http://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/47983

In this problem Black makes a mate threat but it hands over the short-term initiative and will have to defend accurately for the next few moves.  To play the winning move Black would have had to see the defensive resources.

Just to poke fun at myself and acknowledge had hard categorizing problems can be, you might say that this "Defense" problem is based on setting up an "Overwhelming Force" (or is it a "Critical Maneuver"?) threat of mate that is dependent on black finding the key move (a "Quiet Move") of 4...Kd8.

[glennwilson]

An example of "Removing the Attacker" (what else would you call Black's first move?):
http://chesstempo.com/chess-problems/47954
It removes whites attacker of e7 so black can move a off of the e-file that was shielding that attack...
or more generally "Removing the Threat"?.

[newlook]

I'm wondering if the "Removing Defender" tag could be replaced by "Capturing Defender". 

I agree, and furthermore, I think that some of the one-word labels could be expanded to be more descriptive. "Distraction" could be "Distracting defender." "Attraction" could be "Attracting target."

[richard]

newlook: This is a tradeoff between screen real-estate and expressiveness, an option I'm considering is providing rollover descriptions of each tag so that when the user holds the mouse over a tag a one line description of the tactic is displayed.

Regards,
Richard.

[angrypirate]

I think it might be helpful to some to tag the mate in X problems as such, so that if people wanted to work on mates, it would be easy.

[drahacikfm]

It's already very easy to work on mate problems if you want.  Silver and Gold members have special problem sets they can use:  Mate in 1, Mate in 2, Mate in 3, etc.  For those sets you can choose "all problems" or "only problems you have not solved yet".

In the Search Problems screen you can make customized sets of any kind you can imagine.  For example, you could make a set of problems that is "Mate in 3 or more moves that I have not solved yet and which have been rated 3 stars or more", etc.

[texian]

Richard, i've just begun using and understanding the problem tags .. i really like the feature .. in addition to a rollover description a set of a few examples referencing CT problems would also be handy for newbies like me .. earlier today, i noticed the premiem editions offer a "searchable problem set" by tag which i'm really looking forward to seeing

[richard]

texian: I've been threatening to release my in-progress list of descriptions for quite a while now, other issues (CT and non-CT) have managed to get in the way, but It is the next item I'm hoping to cross off the todo list, so hopefully at least a preliminary list of descriptions will be available soon (the idea is that this first release of the descriptions will provide a preview of an updated list of tags and allow some user feedback before putting the new tags into place).

Richard.

[texian]

thanks, RIchard .. i noticed a list of descriptions in Reply 13 in this thread by dlester .. it looked good and was followed by supplemental descriptions by you .. i've copied it and stuck it in a text file for future reference and will continue to read other messages in this thread to see what else i've missed

since beginning tactics training at CTS about a month ago (been here only about 2 weeks), i began trying to categorize problem types there out of my own curiousity and found it a helpful introduction .. i won't bore you with my elementary categories, but knew i'd like to begin thinking along those lines and your CT tags nicely provide the next step

earlier today i began tagging problems where i thought i had a good suggestion .. i had two i'm curious whether i tagged correctly

• 47563 this one i called a "classic Zwischenzug", but having just read about the Zwischenzug recently i wouldn't know a "classic" unless it exactly matched the Wikipedia article i read 
• 9428 this one i called a "Smother" .. the mated King was not completely surrounded by its own pieces, but rather backed into a corner blocked by a single pawn .. on reflection, i suspect "Back Rank Mate" is more appropriate .. so, i tagged it with that, too .. it had previously been tagged "Exposed King" which i didn't especially like as a tag

anyway, as you can see, i'm fascinated by the tagging categories and process .. if i can be of any help to you with setting up your tag list or whatever, i'd be delighted to .. sometimes a raw newbie and rank amatuer can actually be useful .. sometimes it is like adding gasoline to a fire to put it out 

[richard]

There is a fair bit of variation in individual users internal definitions of each tag. I'm hoping the descriptions will help standardise some of them a bit more and remove some of the more problematic tags altogether (possibly by joining them with other tags).

Richard.

[texian]

Simplification:  I haven't used this much, but I understand it to be a sequence of exchanges that are materially equal but result in a positionally favorable position.  The tactics engine does not really produce puzzles like this so I don't see puzzles where I find it applicable.

I've been tagging problems like 36418 as Simplification modifying dlester's definition above as follows:

• Simplification: a sequence of exchanges resulting in a material advantage or a positionally favorable position

I frequently miss these, but am learning the benefits of recognizing when to draw first blood in a sequence that sets up an exchange sequence where that first take cannot be countered leaving me winning a piece in the exchange. Is this a good way to describe and use the simplification tag?

[newlook]

I frequently miss these, but am learning the benefits of recognizing when to draw first blood in a sequence that sets up an exchange sequence where that first take cannot be countered leaving me winning a piece in the exchange. Is this a good way to describe and use the simplification tag?

From the chess.about.com site: "Simplification is the strategy of exchanging pieces of equal value."

Of course, even though the pieces exchanged are of equal value, one player might come out with a better evaluation. For example, let's say that your rook is the only thing stopping my pawn from promoting. I initiate a trade of my rook for yours. My evaluation goes up +9 because my now-unstoppable passed pawn counts as a queen.

[drahacikfm]

Yes, the simplification tag should not be used for exchanges that win material directly.  Almost all the problems where I assigned the simplification tag were problems where you trade off the last piece and get a winning King and Pawn endgame.  Or maybe an endgame where each side still has one piece, but you have a pawn that can't be stopped from queening.

I can't really think of any other problems where the simplification tag should be used, other than going to a winning endgame with no pieces, or just one piece for each side.

[texian]

OK, good thanks for clarifying that for me. How then would you tag situations like 36148 where major pieces get exchanged and you come out ahead because of that first move? Is it perhaps Overloading?

[argentum]

in that case overloading is closest in my opinion. that is not really a simplification.

usually simplification is a case where equal material is exchanged. but after equal material exchange the evaluation difference is not large enough to qualify as winning which is required by this site. so to get label as simplification the situation has to be as mentioned by drahacikfm that equal material has been exchanged but final position might prove to be winning (endgame for example).