![]() ![]() If a particular TT puzzle has less than optimal play that blunders into a mate in 1, is it correct to tag this puzzle with "mate in 1"? Is the starting position, after 1. But if this puzzle were presented in a chess column in a newspaper with the heading "White to move and mate in 3", there would be many letters to the editor correcting them. It is true that with the less than optimal play of black that presents itself in this interactive puzzle, a position is reached which is mate in 3. The term does not mean, "white can force mate in 3 moves, at some future unspecified position of some variation, provided black blunders or plays some particular move." "White mates in 3" means, from the original position of the puzzle, white can force mate in 3 moves, but not 2. " The puzzle itself is a mate in 3 due to the blunder Rb7 that allows for the Qc5#."Įxcept this completely re-defines what the traditional definition of "mate in 3" is. My complaint is that the tag is incorrect. My complaint is not that black played less than optimally. I think the main point here, which Retgruvie is pretty famous for stating on those puzzles "do not worry about the moves you opponent makes, or what they could have done differently/better, the point of these puzzles is to recognize a mistake and capitalize on it the best possible way" sometimes, it is a piece capture, sometimes mate, and sometimes it is a simple defensive move because they missed a golden opportunity. Also, in regards to the castling, There are a few puzzles where castling is the solution. ![]() not what it would have been with better play. Qxe8 $18)īasically, the tags show that the puzzle is a mate in 3 because, due to the mistakes made by your opponent, it is a mate in 3. The computer did not analyze that line because Rb7 is a stupid move, but that stupid move is the point of the puzzle. Correct? You posted what black should have done after Rb8, just below that, is what actually happened. If the other moves are played after Rb8 like Nb1, which is the only move shown in the analysis at that point (also the one you posted) white would be up 5.5pts roughly- houdini and the analysis are correct. If the person played more accurately (which is a complaint I hear alot "why didnt XX play XX instead") the puzzle wouldnt be possible.Īll those other lines are generally better than the ones played (the ones played are mistakes, in order to present tactics- Rb7 in this case). The puzzle itself is a mate in 3 due to the blunder Rb7 that allows for the Qc5#. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |