1. Attack puzzle has more clearly defined solution.
2. There is no difference between attack puzzle and defence puzzle, in the sense that mentally you must play both sides - choose optimal moves for the defender.
I think for defensive puzzles to really work better, the principle of what's counted as the right answer would have to be flipped on its head. Often in defensive situations there's one move that will end you up in trouble and a whole bunch of moves that will more or less avoid it. Picking what's the absolute best way to avoid the problem can be really hard, whereas just picking one of them is more straightforward. When it comes to attacking, there's usually only one way to get into the winning line, unless you're in an amazing position to begin with.
You could start with positions that are one move away from from mate, then 2 moves, until a practical limit of maybe 4-5. I think with the objective being to avoid checkmate, it might be possible to train combination moves that require the prior repositioning of a supportive piece.
The difference is that in an attack puzzle there is no way to prevent the attack, where in a defence puzzle there is, and you have to find out how. The outcome could be clearly defined, e.g. preventing the loss of a knight
Comments
1. Attack puzzle has more clearly defined solution.
2. There is no difference between attack puzzle and defence puzzle, in the sense that mentally you must play both sides - choose optimal moves for the defender.
I think for defensive puzzles to really work better, the principle of what's counted as the right answer would have to be flipped on its head. Often in defensive situations there's one move that will end you up in trouble and a whole bunch of moves that will more or less avoid it. Picking what's the absolute best way to avoid the problem can be really hard, whereas just picking one of them is more straightforward. When it comes to attacking, there's usually only one way to get into the winning line, unless you're in an amazing position to begin with.
You could start with positions that are one move away from from mate, then 2 moves, until a practical limit of maybe 4-5. I think with the objective being to avoid checkmate, it might be possible to train combination moves that require the prior repositioning of a supportive piece.
The difference is that in an attack puzzle there is no way to prevent the attack, where in a defence puzzle there is, and you have to find out how. The outcome could be clearly defined, e.g. preventing the loss of a knight
Visually, defense puzzles are upside down/mirror-color from attack puzzles, if the attacking side is the opponent.