Is Chess Tactics Pro a reliable software?
Sort:
It's true that 4. Rf4 survives much longer, but White loses anyway.
Please try to use english notation, because I nearly thought you posted the wrong puzzle when you said 1. Kd5.
Keep in mind that tactics puzzles do not always show the best continuation. It is quite possible that the same position is used in multiple puzzles, but have different continuations. In all continuations your 'opponent' was worse, it is not that he could have played a non-losing move.
In a tactics puzzle you need to calculate all variations, because even in real games, opponents can deliberately play an inferior move to throw you off guard, because the continuation in that inferior move is harder to see than the best move.
VyboR wrote:
Please try to use english notation, because I nearly thought you posted the wrong puzzle when you said 1. Kd5.
Keep in mind that tactics puzzles do not always show the best continuation. It is quite possible that the same position is used in multiple puzzles, but have different continuations. In all continuations your 'opponent' was worse, it is not that he could have played a non-losing move.
In a tactics puzzle you need to calculate all variations, because even in real games, opponents can deliberately play an inferior move to throw you off guard, because the continuation in that inferior move is harder to see than the best move.
Exactly!
>Please try to use english notation, because I nearly thought you posted the wrong puzzle when you said 1. Kd5.
Sorry, I'm not really used to chess notation. I though about Knight but I forgot that the K it's already taken by the king.
>Keep in mind that tactics puzzles do not always show the best continuation. It is quite possible that the same position is used in multiple puzzles, but have different continuations.
Ok.
>In all continuations your 'opponent' was worse, it is not that he could have played a non-losing move.
I beg to disagree. It's difficult to beat the engine even if you continue the puzzle starting from a winning position. This from my point of view, as a mediocre player.
>In a tactics puzzle you need to calculate all variations, because even in real games, opponents can deliberately play an inferior move to throw you off guard, because the continuation in that inferior move is harder to see than the best move.
Searching for the solution of the puzzle I saw both variations of course. That's why I was surprised when the program suggested the easier one.
I didn't know about what you wrote in this last paragraph though. Is this a strategy employed by professionals as well?
Nipplewise wrote:
>In all continuations your 'opponent' was worse, it is not that he could have played a non-losing move.
I beg to disagree. It's difficult to beat the engine even if you continue the puzzle starting from a winning position. This from my point of view, as a mediocre player.
What I meant is, it is not that the puzzle deliberately play a bad move for the opponent (let's say -6.00) while there was a (+3.00) move, because there simply was not. In the cases you showed in the 2nd puzzle white was worse, albeit one was even worse than the other.
Keep in mind that these are tactics puzzles, meant for you to find and calculate the tactic with its variations, and not positions for you to play till the very end against an engine.
Nipplewise wrote:
>In a tactics puzzle you need to calculate all variations, because even in real games, opponents can deliberately play an inferior move to throw you off guard, because the continuation in that inferior move is harder to see than the best move.
Searching for the solution of the puzzle I saw both variations of course. That's why I was surprised when the program suggested the easier one.
I didn't know about what you wrote in this last paragraph though. Is this a strategy employed by professionals as well?
Novelties do happen, and a novelty does not automatically mean it is the best move, but can surely catch an unprepared opponent off guard.
I know a game from almost a century ago (yes, I know, old game, but a nice example to show), where famous player Emanuel Lasker deliberately played an inferior move, while he knew 15.Qf3 was the best move, trying to catch his opponent off guard. Sadly for him, his opponent knew the Marshall Attack too well.
VyboR wrote:
Nipplewise wrote:
>In all continuations your 'opponent' was worse, it is not that he could have played a non-losing move.
I beg to disagree. It's difficult to beat the engine even if you continue the puzzle starting from a winning position. This from my point of view, as a mediocre player.
What I meant is, it is not that the puzzle deliberately play a bad move for the opponent (let's say -6.00) while there was a (+3.00) move, because there simply was not. In the cases you showed in the 2nd puzzle white was worse, albeit one was even worse than the other.
Keep in mind that these are tactics puzzles, meant for you to find and calculate the tactic with its variations, and not positions for you to play till the very end against an engine.
Nipplewise wrote:
>In a tactics puzzle you need to calculate all variations, because even in real games, opponents can deliberately play an inferior move to throw you off guard, because the continuation in that inferior move is harder to see than the best move.
Searching for the solution of the puzzle I saw both variations of course. That's why I was surprised when the program suggested the easier one.
I didn't know about what you wrote in this last paragraph though. Is this a strategy employed by professionals as well?
Novelties do happen, and a novelty does not automatically mean it is the best move, but can surely catch an unprepared opponent off guard.
I know a game from almost a century ago (yes, I know, old game, but a nice example to show), where famous player Emanuel Lasker deliberately played an inferior move, while he knew 15.Qf3 was the best move, trying to catch his opponent off guard. Sadly for him, his opponent knew the Marshall Attack too well.
That was a nice game! Lasker was known for making inferior moves in order to trick his opponents into making a mistake.
>Keep in mind that these are tactics puzzles, meant for you to find and calculate the tactic with its variations, and not positions for you to play till the very end against an engine.
Ok, now we understand each other. What I'm saying is, although in an ideal match the engine will lose, in a situation when we continue the game (I often do that when finishing the puzzle) the engine has a much higher chance of winning having played stronger variations during the puzzle, but I understand what you are saying.
>I know a game from almost a century ago (yes, I know, old game, but a nice example to show), where famous player Emanuel Lasker deliberately played an inferior move, while he knew 15.Qf3 was the best move, trying to catch his opponent off guard. Sadly for him, his opponent knew the Marshall Attack too well.
Thank you for the reference.
I thought of 1. Nd5, Qd8 having this way two knights attacking the e7 bishop. I didn't know which knight to use and the engine suggested 2. Nd5xe7 (in view of Rxd6?). He is forced to 2. ..., Rxe7. Then I thought of Nxe7 but the engine knows better so... etc...
The point is that after 1. Nd5 the recommended continuation is 1. ..., Bxd5. This was one of today's medium puzzles. I face the same dilemma with the first hard puzzle, but this time after "solving it according to Chess Tactics" I directly asked the engine.
Edit: notation fixed.