How did that B get to b5?

Maybe Bxb5 Rb1 c6 or something.  It also could have happened much earlier in the game.

Yeah...I concluded that after posting. Thanks.

Looks to me...from calculating:

Rd1...

Qd4...

Nh6#

Just a quick calculation. I really should put it on a board.

[COMMENT DELETED...duplicate]

The only pattern I saw was "weak king". The rest was by calculation, although I supposed you could argue that "deflection" is kind of a pattern too.

For me, one of the hardest things about solving a tactical puzzle is finding the best defensive moves for the opponent.  At least in puzzles like these where the "big idea" of it hits you in the face and you're just trying to find a way to get there.

I thought of Rd1 too, but after Qe7 the diagonal is protected on an additional square (g7).

Pattern recognition for the B+N mate, calculation for deflecting the rook

Concise way to say it.

I found it in a tactics book. I think Tietz played this game as white.

I like to calculate! Isn't that supposed to be key to the enjoyment of chess?

It seems if you are in a unfamiliar position you half to calculate, but when you play something a lot, you know the tactics. That is why it is good to learn opening theory. The position I showed is unusual because it is a very unusual tactic.That is why I got it wrong on my first try. That is why you should study tactics. My weakness is not tactics or openings(I am trying to seriously memorize openings in my repertoire and my tactics are super strong) but the nothing to do positions (that includes endgames). Here is my question, do strong players use pattern recognition for the nothing to do positions, and if not, how do they do it?

This is the answer to the chess problem I posted earlier.

CHCL: This is the answer to the chess problem I posted earlier.

I've had a chance to put this on an engine. The result was Rd1, as I had calculated instead of RxB as shown. Then ...Qe7, Qd4...Qg7   which is also in line with my quick calculation.

From there the white bishop was brought in for Be5 followed by an exchange of Qs. The end result, after the dust settled, is that white came out ahead but no mate in 6.

I don't think I did too badly, for a quick calculation. Also, at my level 3 or 4 moves and the various permutations/combinations therein is the best of my capability. And, I doubt that there are many players except the best who can see 6 ply in one fell swoop.

Also, the engine that I used in this case didn't come up with the answer either. In fairness, I may not have given it sufficient time to really "deep think". Or...it could be the limit of this particular engine. 

Pattern recognition may play a general role in this kind of puzzle. Yet the player must also be precise in the calculations. And, how many players can extrapolate six moves in?

I'm just a guy who is earnestly looking to improve. And, I know that I have a long way to go.

@e4nf3, what do you mean "The result was Rd1, as I had calculated instead of RxB as shown." Your engine chose Rd1 over Rook takes bishop!!! I will admit that 1.Qf1 and 2.Qf1 were strong, but Rd1 is just equal.

This game was played in the 1800s, I don't think there was any patterns to study.

Yes. It did. As I said. Look...I'm just reporting the news.

You can use different engines and get different results in many cases. Too, there are variables as to how much time you give an engine...as someone who plays a blitz game or someone who has three days in correspondence.

I played in the 1950ies and never heard of "pattern recognition" back then.

Other words not used: lines, book, database, opening theory...just a few off the top of my head.

First, if your live standard rating is under 1600. You're not "super strong" in tactics. That's ok, I"m not either. No one who below master level is. 

Second, the number of positions where there is "nothing to do" is very, very small. There's always tactical shots to take, sometimes the tactics don't win a piece, they are merely a threat to win a positional concession, but they're still tactics.

And that's what folks in the "not yet master" club don't get. When my coach walks me through those "do nothing" positions he explains every move in terms of the tactical issues at hand. And the very fact that we don't see the tactical ideas and instead see a "do nothing position" unless they're explained is pretty much why we're not that good at this game. 

Thanks for the information. I have another question, should the tactical games of the 1800s or should I study the games of the great positional players?

When I mean nothing to do, I mean positions in (for instance) the Caro-Can.

P.S. I am strong in tactics, but am very weak in endgames and slow positions.