> How do you recognize tactical opportunities? One thing that might help (e.g. in the second puzzle at 28:48) is to explicitly enumerate all the pinned pieces in the positions and then enumerate all the squares that are _not_ attacked even though visually it naively looks like they are (e.g. f6), then look for pieces that can make use of that square. [Also look for under-/less protected squares, e.g. the h6 pawn is not protected by the g7 pawn, only by the h8 rook-not that this ends up mattering in _this_ position, but in general it might be useful.] We get so used to habitual shortcuts ("three pawns in front of a castled king means every square in front of the pawns are attacked by those pawns") that taking explicit steps to break out of them (when applicable) probably pays off.
> How do you recognize tactical opportunities?
One thing that might help (e.g. in the second puzzle at 28:48) is to explicitly enumerate all the pinned pieces in the positions and then enumerate all the squares that are _not_ attacked even though visually it naively looks like they are (e.g. f6), then look for pieces that can make use of that square. [Also look for under-/less protected squares, e.g. the h6 pawn is not protected by the g7 pawn, only by the h8 rook-not that this ends up mattering in _this_ position, but in general it might be useful.]
We get so used to habitual shortcuts ("three pawns in front of a castled king means every square in front of the pawns are attacked by those pawns") that taking explicit steps to break out of them (when applicable) probably pays off.