I already discussed this in another post. I don't want to do it again. Also I sense a lot of rudeness in your message. You don't want to discuss, you just want to fight, or at least that's what I think. I'm out. Bye.
#21 I'm not fighting. I just explained you the slight difference between leaving a hanging queen and forcing a mate in 2. I'm sorry if that obviousness made you feel attacked.
What I was trying to say is that if you couldn't find the easiest kind of checkmate which is mate in one in this puzzle, you shouldn't get another chance. Even tho objectively I agree that there is no difference between a mate in one and a mate in 25 if you want, the mate in two compared to the mate in one is a mediocre solution. True, an equally good solution, but mediocre nonetheless because it takes more time to get to arrive to the same place.
By forcing you to try to find the very best solution, and not accepting a mediocre solution, I think the puzzle system is helping you to be a better chess player. It's forcing you to calculate more accurately. Specially, if there is a mate in one and you didn't see it (which I didn't), which lead me to think I might be very impulsive since it's actually not hard to calculate a mate in one. You don't have to retain variations in your head to calculate a mate in one, you just need to see it. That's why I compared it with hanging a Queen. You don't have to calculate to see that your Queen will be hanging, you just have to pay attention.
Next time, maybe I will not be so impulsive. And all because of lichess was not content with my not so good solution.
By forcing you to try to find the very best solution, and not accepting a mediocre solution, I think the puzzle system is helping you to be a better chess player. It's forcing you to calculate more accurately. Specially, if there is a mate in one and you didn't see it (which I didn't), which lead me to think I might be very impulsive since it's actually not hard to calculate a mate in one. You don't have to retain variations in your head to calculate a mate in one, you just need to see it. That's why I compared it with hanging a Queen. You don't have to calculate to see that your Queen will be hanging, you just have to pay attention.
Next time, maybe I will not be so impulsive. And all because of lichess was not content with my not so good solution.
If you see a master play a mate in two instead of a mate in one, is it really that bad? The point here is that charging someone with a wrong answer for giving an otherwise totally acceptable solution is ridiculous. This isn't the WCSC and it shouldn't be. Chess.com tactics don't allow this and I applaud them for it.
OP I may be getting ahead of myself but I think you should just play classical chess. Speed comes with practice, you should play for accuracy. If you have a 2300 rating in puzzles I think you definitely can achieve higher and better results in actual games with a proper plan.
#23 I understand your point. But I disagree with the part of "mediocre because it takes more time to arrive to the same place". What if it takes one more move? You are still forcing a mate, without allowing your opponent to counter-attack or anything, all the moves are still forced and leads you to the same result.
True is that Bobby Fischer said "if you find a good move, search for a better one". But I don't think he was thinking about "if you find a mate in 2, search for a mate in 1".
I mean, if I didn't find the mate in 1 is not because I'm not capable of it, it's just because (casually) my eyes started with the mate in 2, then automatically I calculated it and I made sure a couple of times that it was a forced mate and that the enemy hadn't any chance to defend it... so why should I care to look for a more elegant/beautiful/shorter mate if the one I found works?
True is that Bobby Fischer said "if you find a good move, search for a better one". But I don't think he was thinking about "if you find a mate in 2, search for a mate in 1".
I mean, if I didn't find the mate in 1 is not because I'm not capable of it, it's just because (casually) my eyes started with the mate in 2, then automatically I calculated it and I made sure a couple of times that it was a forced mate and that the enemy hadn't any chance to defend it... so why should I care to look for a more elegant/beautiful/shorter mate if the one I found works?
I played RxNf1 and failed the puzzle.
And I took at least 15 seconds before playing it, but I never saw the 1-move checkmate.
It's quite easy to explain, when you do a lot of puzzles, you got used to some typical patterns, like RxN, that get rid of the Queen and Qh2#.
And I took at least 15 seconds before playing it, but I never saw the 1-move checkmate.
It's quite easy to explain, when you do a lot of puzzles, you got used to some typical patterns, like RxN, that get rid of the Queen and Qh2#.
#26
You should care, because the more precise your calculations are, the better you are at chess.
You should care, because the more precise your calculations are, the better you are at chess.
Better players would spend more time on moves that actually determine whether you win, lose, or draw. Even a forced mate in 10 is still a win...
#25
Thank you for the advice, actually I am already playing a correspondence game against a much stronger player and I am not too bad. :)
But sometimes, even with two days for a move, I still don't know what to play, it is harder than the puzzles because you don't know if there is a real winning move. And when I see moves that lead, according to me, to a draw, I prefer trying more "surprising" moves leading to some uncertainty, so I may end up by losing the game if my opponent does not make mistakes.
For the discussion about the forced mate, my opinion is that we should fail a puzzle for not seeing a mate in one. But when we see a mate in 8 while there is a mate in 7, it is quite horrible to fail because we already have made a very good plan without seeing the best one... You could say it is the same problem because in the end we did not see a mate in 1 but for a mate in 7 or 8 you really need to make a good calculation, so for me it is not the same and the "good move but you can do better" should be allowed in this case.
Now, I have another hard puzzle (~2400 when I did it) to propose which is actually quite simple but it took me ages (much more than 300 seconds) to figure out the right moves, and I am quite happy to get a victory. I would like to know your opinion about this one:
http://en.lichess.org/training/40555
Once again I am puzzled by the fact that it can be so hard to see simple patterns for winning moves.
Hint: Don't worry, no mate in 1 move for this one!
Thank you for the advice, actually I am already playing a correspondence game against a much stronger player and I am not too bad. :)
But sometimes, even with two days for a move, I still don't know what to play, it is harder than the puzzles because you don't know if there is a real winning move. And when I see moves that lead, according to me, to a draw, I prefer trying more "surprising" moves leading to some uncertainty, so I may end up by losing the game if my opponent does not make mistakes.
For the discussion about the forced mate, my opinion is that we should fail a puzzle for not seeing a mate in one. But when we see a mate in 8 while there is a mate in 7, it is quite horrible to fail because we already have made a very good plan without seeing the best one... You could say it is the same problem because in the end we did not see a mate in 1 but for a mate in 7 or 8 you really need to make a good calculation, so for me it is not the same and the "good move but you can do better" should be allowed in this case.
Now, I have another hard puzzle (~2400 when I did it) to propose which is actually quite simple but it took me ages (much more than 300 seconds) to figure out the right moves, and I am quite happy to get a victory. I would like to know your opinion about this one:
http://en.lichess.org/training/40555
Once again I am puzzled by the fact that it can be so hard to see simple patterns for winning moves.
Hint: Don't worry, no mate in 1 move for this one!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.