Here's a witty proof game that seems appropriate for the Xmas and holiday season. The diagram shows a game position after Black's 6th move. Can you reconstruct the game? For part (b) of this "twin", shift the knight from b8 to g8 in the diagram, then solve again.
Bumping this thread to indicate that I've posted another blog, Stockfish and a forced-mate problem it cannot solve. Check it out!
Good stuff!
Good job in solving this tricky proof game, TrueElon! Want to solve part (b) as well where the black knight is on g8 instead of b8?
Check out my new blog: The greatest masters of both the game and problems – Part 1.
On the first puzzle the first move I looked at was the first move of the solution but I immediately dismissed it because of the bishop check which would prolong the mate(that's usually how it works). Great solution and nice composed problems
Just finished a new blog: The greatest masters of both the game and problems – Part 2.
Ever wondered why most composed problems have "unrealistic" positions?
Composers just prefer economy over beauty I am guessing.
I like when the position resembles a game or even the idea originates from a game, and the key move looks natural from the point of sound chess strategy.
Ever wondered why most composed problems have "unrealistic" positions?
Composers just prefer economy over beauty I am guessing.
Actually, composers choose economy over "realism" in order to bring about beauty. Economy is a basic principle in most art forms. There are no unnecessary pieces in a good composed chess problem, in the same way that there are no unnecessary notes in a good piece of music, no unnecessary words in a good poem.
I like when the position resembles a game or even the idea originates from a game, and the key move looks natural from the point of sound chess strategy.
Of course no-one can tell you what you like, but it's sounds like you prefer tactical puzzles that have little to do with composed problems.
I like when the position resembles a game or even the idea originates from a game, and the key move looks natural from the point of sound chess strategy.
Of course no-one can tell you what you like, but it's sounds like you prefer tactical puzzles that have little to do with composed problems.
"Puzzle" and "problem" are synonyms in chess composition, aren't they? "Tactical" means the solution is based on concrete lines, instead of just plans and ideas. So any direct-mate-in-N-moves problem is also a "tactical puzzle".
My point is following: If I made a direct mate puzzle by my own taste, i.e. resembling a game, with natural key move e.g. 1. Bc4xf7+! followed by 1. ... Ke8xf7 2. Qd1-h5+ etc., and sent it for publication in some problemist journal, it wouldn't get past review. If it participated in a problemist's competition, it would place poorly, behind many unnatural ugly puzzles. Because judges are just subjective.
I appreciate ideas of chess composition (economy, unity etc) but I place them strictly behind naturalistic beauty. If the position looks "unrealistic", it is a big flaw.
Composed problems and tactical puzzles with "realistic" positions (which can also be constructed) are both "puzzles" in the broad sense but they are different forms of puzzles that follow different principles. If the principles of composed problems result in positions that seem "ugly" to you, that's a matter of taste and there's not much we can do about it. But if you entered a tactical puzzle in a competition for composed problems and your position doesn't follow the artistic principles of problems, it makes sense that it wouldn't do well. And yes, judging problems is subjective as is the case with judging all art forms.
It's like the difference between talking and singing - both use your voice but they follow different principles. The sound of singing may sound "ugly" to you because it's "unnatural" and "nobody talks like that", but if you were to talk your way through a singing competition, you can't expect to do well. And yes, singing competitions are judged subjectively.
In the Prologue to "Chess by Milan", Vukcevich makes this observation on this topic: "Problems and games are two equal aspects of chess and the difference between them is more in the intensity than in the substance. Relative to the game, a good chess problem activates more force per move, uses pieces more efficiently and stresses more their cooperation and interference with each other. A good problem may combine a dozen separate elements into one extraordinary event, in the same way in which a good novel may condense a dozen real lives into a single lifetime of its fictitious hero."
By the way, the first problem in the book is the one that appeared as the Daily Puzzle a few days ago.
Look at this:
This is the first problem ever composed by Reti. The intended solution was 1. Qh8 Qxh8 2. Kb4 and 3. c3# can't be avoided. But black responds with 1. ... Kxc4! and there is no mate soon enough. Is the problem incorrect?
No, it is correct! 1. Qf2+! Kxc4 2. Ba2+ Kc3 3. Bxe5# or 1. ... Qe3 2. Qxe3+ Kxc4 3. Ba2#.
I think this is a nice example, where intended and unintended solution don't cook each other, because the intended solution is incorrect. And the unintended correct solution is more straightforward and therefore more beautiful than the intended. Also, the intended incorrect line makes a sophisticated LURE for "serious" solvers, who don't expect check in the key move.
In the Prologue to "Chess by Milan", Vukcevich makes this observation on this topic: "Problems and games are two equal aspects of chess and the difference between them is more in the intensity than in the substance. Relative to the game, a good chess problem activates more force per move, uses pieces more efficiently and stresses more their cooperation and interference with each other. A good problem may combine a dozen separate elements into one extraordinary event, in the same way in which a good novel may condense a dozen real lives into a single lifetime of its fictitious hero."
By the way, the first problem in the book is the one that appeared as the Daily Puzzle a few days ago.
Excellent quote from Vukcevich pointing out some important differences between problems and the game.
And the unintended correct solution is more straightforward and therefore more beautiful than the intended.
That doesn't compute. The intended key 1.Qh8! is a Q-sacrifice and paradoxically places the Q in a corner (weaker) square - elements that make the move striking, surprising, and special, and hence aesthetically pleasing or beautiful. The cook 1.Qf2+! is indeed "straightforward" as it's a mundane, unsubtle, and obvious check and hence the opposite of beautiful. Even in games, sacrifices are considered beautiful and there's nothing "straightforward" about, say, Fischer's Game of the Century.
Also, the intended incorrect line makes a sophisticated LURE for "serious" solvers, who don't expect check in the key move.
Keys being non-checking (in short problems) is a rule that is broken only in exceptional cases by expert composers who know what they're doing. Without a good thematic reason for it, a checking key is simply bad.
First, 1. Qf2+! isn't a "cook", since it is the only correct solution.
Second, 1. Qf2+! (check) is unexpected as key move "by conventions" and together that makes it extraordinary, when there is the luring but incorrect 1. Qh8 "aesthetically pleasing" theme.
Third, it is indeed completely subjective what is mundane and what is beautiful.
You should know this problem was considered incorrect for long time, even during Reti's lifetime the bust 1. Qh8 Kxc4! was known, but AFAIK nobody discovered the 1. Qf2+!, until I checked with computer.
This is IMO one of few true natural gems of chess composition.
Interfering in this beautiful conversation, a relative subject-question by me.
I searched on web and found that cooked is a problem with a second unintended key move.
With this in mind, is considered cooked an endgame study, with an original given certain solution for draw, when there's also a solution for win? Asking this having in mind some retro problems, where there were given as eg. mate at exactly 2 moves while there were multiple m1.
Ever wondered why most composed problems have "unrealistic" positions? What is the point of such problems? Want to know some basic ideas and hints that will help you solve them? For answers to these questions and more, check my new blog post! An introduction to composed chess problems. Here are two of the "Mate in 2" problems that are discussed in the post.