Since there are some chess-lovers I thought that we could share some chess-studies for a bit brain training.
Don't use Chess-Programms to solve such studies if you want to have a challenge, only a hint.
Here is a small Studie I composed myself in 21.02.2000:
White moves and mates in 4!
(a forced mate, no matter if black wants or not)
If someone have composed his own studies or have great and interesting studies of other people, please post them here.
Have Fun!
A forced mate in 4? that's quick...
I found a line in mate in 3, but black can live if plays correctly, here's my line:
1. Bg2 Ke2 2. Nd4+ Ke3?? 3. Rf3#
I'll try to get that forced mate in 4...
A tricky one that took me some time to solve, but in positions like these it's important to realize the importance of stalemate. The black king has no moves, and any maneuvres by white would result in stalemate. Time to give black some moves to make while we mobilize our forces.
1. Rf5 gxf5
necessary to sacrifice the rook in order to give black some legal moves.
2. Nd4 f4
To keep the Black king stalemated. Note that the rook sac makes all this possible.
3. g6 f3
To make black cover his only escape square.
4. Nf5#
And the logic follows through. An interesting puzzle.
necessary to sacrifice the rook in order to give black some legal moves
Well, it's necessary to force a mate in 4 but there are plenty of other winning moves, and some losing ones, too, as Goroh proved. I think it's a bit more proper to avoid overgeneralizing things, to prevent confusion amongst people who might not have your understanding of chess.
I though about the sacrifice, but though that white had to promote, which would waist the 4 moves before getting a mate...
Now that it's solved, I took a look of the puzzle with Crafty & gave me a mate in 5, here's how it goes:
1. Ke5-d6 Ke3-e4 2. Nb3-a5 Ke4-e3 3. Na5-c4+ Ke3-e4 4. Bf1-d3+ Ke4-d4 5. Rf8-f4#
Well, it's necessary to force a mate in 4 but there are plenty of other winning moves, and some losing ones, too, as Goroh proved. I think it's a bit more proper to avoid overgeneralizing things, to prevent confusion amongst people who might not have your understanding of chess.
yes, there are other moves, but the puzzle asks specifically to mate in four and nothing else. Thus, the only lines that should be considered are those that achieve this goal. The rook needs to be sacrificed to solve the puzzle; it's not an overgeneralization, it's a matter of fact.
How did you guys learn to do this? Is there a methodology or do you just look at it for a long time? And for computer solvers, is there a methodology or is it brute force?
yes, there are other moves, but the puzzle asks specifically to mate in four and nothing else. Thus, the only lines that should be considered are those that achieve this goal. The rook needs to be sacrificed to solve the puzzle; it's not an overgeneralization, it's a matter of fact.
My mother always taught me not to argue with semantic bullshit. You made a somewhat misleading statement in your solution. I corrected you. Case closed.
Ramzi wrote:
How did you guys learn to do this? Is there a methodology or do you just look at it for a long time? And for computer solvers, is there a methodology or is it brute force?
If you examine a large number of chess puzzles and their solutions, you will begin to get a feel for how the vast majority of them are constructed. You will notice certain pieces which are blocking other pieces in a particular manner and are thus very unlikely to be any part of the solution, allowing you to narrow down the "actors" in the puzzle to 2 or 3 pieces.
If you want to learn to solve more chess puzzles, there are endless websites devoted to them, and many great books. Nunn is probably the most famous writer of chess puzzles. In fact, one of Nunn's puzzles is the most notorious in the world, having stumped literally the best players in the world:
1. e4 ... 2. ... ... 3. ... ... 4. ... ... 5. NxR#
Fill in the blanks. An amusing anecdote about this puzzle can be found at http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzz05d.htm .
My mother always taught me not to argue with semantic bullshit. You made a somewhat misleading statement in your solution. I corrected you. Case closed.
In other positions you may be right, but in this particular one, Rf5 is the ONLY move that solves the puzzle. In this case I am justified in saying it is necessary.
Moving on, here's another puzzle:
White to play and mate in 3 moves
This is a very tough one, so I commend anyone who can solve it. Note that white's pawns move up.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
white king top-right, then white queen all the way to the right? that makes it mate in uh.... 2 moves?
edit: oh sorry that makes it stalemate in 1 move. ok move the king up and then i dont want to think anymore its late and i dont like chess that much hehe :)
In other positions you may be right, but in this particular one, Rf5 is the ONLY move that solves the puzzle. In this case I am justified in saying it is necessary.
But you didn't say the move was necessary to solve the puzzle. You said the move was necessary to "give black some legal moves." You were wrong, as there were many other moves for white that did not stalemate black, though it is likely you were just being unintentionally inaccurate. Furthermore, it's meaningless to say "this move is required for the solution" in an explanation of the solution. Not only was that was not the actual meaning of the words you said, but such a thing would never be said, so it couldn't have been the intended meaning of your words. Why are you arguing about this when you are clearly wrong? Is it so terrible to have someone correct a minor linguistic inaccuracy of yours in the correct solution of a chess puzzle for the sake of not confusing other members of the forum? You've blown this way out of proportion by choosing to argue about it.
I agree with Deviance, what he said was correct and not misleading at all. If someone asks for the solution to a puzzle and someone is responding, it's assumed that he's talking about the solution. If I ask "how do you do that flying trick in SMW" and Flagitious says "it's necessary to press the button X number of frames after Y happens", nothing is wrong or misleading about what he said.
It is true that I could have eliminated ambiguity by saying "Necessary to give black some legal moves and lead to mate in 4." This would make Rf5 the only move that would fit that description. But this is redundant, because the solution is presented in the context of puzzle. Thus, it is implied why it is necessary to sacrifice the rook to give black legal moves rather than to do the same with Kf6.
The puzzle doesn't state that it is white who mates, so it could also be 5. ... NxR#.
Mmm, all I can get it's a mate in 4 not 3 ... Like 1. Qb6 or Qf4..
I was surprised to see that Fritz finds mate in 4 instead of 3. Possibly because that's the mate it found first and then stopped looking. I'll give a hint, you're on the right track, the first move is with queen.
I agree with Deviance, what he said was correct and not misleading at all. If someone asks for the solution to a puzzle and someone is responding, it's assumed that he's talking about the solution. If I ask "how do you do that flying trick in SMW" and Flagitious says "it's necessary to press the button X number of frames after Y happens", nothing is wrong or misleading about what he said.
Your analogy is not apt. What Deviance said is akin to Flagitious saying, "it's necessary to press the button X number of frames after Y happens," and then giving an incorrect reason why the timing must be thus. Deviance's solution is simply the list of moves, which I have no problems with. What I take exception to is the incorrect reasoning he gives in his pseudo-explanation. Sacrificing the rook is not necessary "to give black some legal moves." This reasoning is exactly what Deviance said. It is incorrect. Sacrificing the rook is necessary to solve the problem, which is both pretty damned obvious and not at all what he said.
The puzzle doesn't state that it is white who mates, so it could also be 5. ... NxR#.
Do you mean that the anecdote about the puzzle is ambiguous compared to my perfectly explicit instructions? If that's what you mean, then you are right. If it pleases you, you may try to solve for 5. ... NxR#, even though it's insoluble. Don't take my word for it.
Oops, I mixed that one up big time, didn't I!?!? I should have said one thing and I said something else!! It's so difficult to just admit mistakes though, maybe I should invent some bullshit and argue about it all night.
Sacrificing the rook is not necessary "to give black some legal moves."
In the context of the puzzle, that statement is false. It is necessary to sacrifice the rook to give black some legal moves. Without doing so, the puzzle cannot be solved. It is NOT necessary to sacrifice the bishop to give legal moves and it is NOT necessary to move Kf6 to give black legal moves. We can only say that the rook sac is necessary.
I think you mean to emphasize that there are other moves that give black legal squares. Yes, there are other moves but they are both unnecessary and fail to solve the puzzle. My annotation, like many annotations, pertains only to the line being analyzed. I find it doubtful that anyone was confused by what I said.
Oops, I mixed that one up big time, didn't I!?!? I should have said one thing and I said something else!! It's so difficult to just admit mistakes though, maybe I should invent some bullshit and argue about it all night.
I do not appreciate your sarcasm. You are clearly targeting me with that comment. You should not argue once you have lost your objectivity.
The solution for the other problem is 1.Qb3
1...axb3 2.Kf5 b2 3.g4#
If the black king tries to flee the queen can go to g8 and mate him.
What if:
1. Qb3 Kg6 , does 2. is Qg8+ is next? if so, what if black decides to play 2. ... Kh5
Can white still mate in 3?
Edited: Hehe, yep it can, didn't saw it... 3. g4#
I do not appreciate your sarcasm. You are clearly targeting me with that comment.
Oh, Deviance, you give me too much credit. How could I have been targeting you with that comment and the posts that led up to it?!?! I'm just not that clever, and surely you're not that predictable.
In the context of the puzzle, that statement is false.
Ok, how about this: "It was necessary to make this post for my life to continue." Because within the context of this post, it was certainly necessary that I make it for my life to continue after making it ... right? That's precisely equivalent to your argument. But clearly whether or not I am alive has nothing to do with this post. You can't arbitrarily restrict overgeneralized comments to a specific context when you didn't explicitly state the restriction, especially when the context you purport your comment was restricted to was made invalid by the very fact that you mentioned anything at all in the first place!
White moves and mates in 4!
(a forced mate, no matter if black wants or not)
If someone have composed his own studies or have great and interesting studies of other people, please post them here.
Have Fun!
White to play and mate in 3 moves
This is a very tough one, so I commend anyone who can solve it. Note that white's pawns move up.
