Hard mate in 2 [Composed chess puzzle]

HINT

Black is almost in zugzwang(not being able to move any pieces without harming your own position)

HINT

I did not invent this puzzle but I thought it was too cool not too share.

Credit goes to NM John Chernoff. Also known as ZugAddict on twitch

Pretty good and indeed hard for a Mate-in-2. Unfortunately the position is illegal because the BB couldn't have reached g8, given the BPs on f7/h7 which had never moved.

Yeah I noticed that too. Sadly there isn't any way to fix it. If there is not a black piece there 1... Ng8 gets white out of the mate in 2 situation(Qb7+ doesn't work anymore because there is no piece occupying f5) and all other black pieces would be able to move, making the zugzwang totally void

Isn't Nxf2+ check also mate in 2? As if black takes it Qd3# and if Ke3 then Qd3# as well.

I thought so, but 1. (Nxf2+) Bxf2+ is the check.

Btw, how the black bishop got to g8?

 Thanks - great(est) puzzle.

I missed the (forced) Mi2 solution and needed 3 moves.

After Nxf2+ Bxf2 white is in check and can't play Qd3#

Just get rid of the h7 pawn

Then the zugzwang is void. 1. Bh3 Bh7 now what?

In fact the computer calls that position a mate in three, which would make the puzzle a not-so good mate in 4

Oh, duh! Sorry I missed that Bxf2 is check.

Took me a while but here's a fix!

Besides correcting the illegality, the position is more economical with fewer heavy pieces. The solutions are similar with two main differences. (1) The variation 1...Nf5 2.Qxb7 in the original is gone, but considering how this line repeats the Q mate seen after 1...Rxh4, it's not a big loss. (2) We gain a BR variation, 1...Rxg3/Rxg5 2.Qf5, to go with 1...Rf4/Rg5 2.Qxc6.

Hey I never noticed this thread before but I’m the “composer” of the original puzzle.  Anyhow, given the increased popularity of chess 960 I wonder how much of a flaw the g8 bishop is these days.

That will not change as you published your problem in a standard chess environment with standard chess rules. The applicable rules are part of the puzzle package. Would you decide to repackage the original challenge as a chess960 problem you are free to do so. That would however lower its value. Many standard chess problems can be transferred to deviant types - known as fairy chess - showing the exact same content as in standard chess en they are not appreciated. Only when you show an idea new to standard chess you will receive credits for a fairy type creation. As Rocky64 has demonstrated that your problem needs no illegally placed bishop, it will be frowned upon from here on till eternity. Even if chess960 is integrated with standard chess at some point, every problem creation will continue to be judged by the rules of its original environment. It's the same as with reposted old indian problems when they played chess by different rules. No one will ever suggest to evaluate those positions with the chess rules of the 21st century!

I didn't "publish" this except in the sense of including it in a lichess study of chess puzzles I've made or am working on.   I suppose if I did publish it (I don't think it's remarkable enough for that, but that's beside the point) I'd call it a "chess 960" puzzle, though the semantics are of little interest to me - a puzzle is either entertaining or it isn't regardless of what it is called, when it was made, or where it was (or wasn't) published.

Sounds like quite an accomplishment.

Thanks, and bravo on the fix.  I actually prefer the original in terms of play and appearance (no accounting for taste I suppose) but it's nice to see the idea soundly realized.

I guess my answer wasn't clear enough. You wondered how much of a flaw your g8 bishop was with the growing popularity of chess960. Which assumes you are looking for an external puzzle standard as it moves with the times. I provided it and explained how it affects the soundness of your puzzle. Judgement of flaws does not care a lot about how interesting your creation is when it is flawed. I guarantee you there is a massive amount of interesting problems with 3 white kings and pawns sitting on the 8th rank. Pointing to semantics is a favorite pastime of the social media era and never serves anything but setting up an opinion stalemate. What you are unaware of is that chess actually has its own mathematically sound semantic space which divides its syntax space. The part we call "legal positions" has semantics the other part not. Your problem position is "illegal" and therefore not meaningful chess.