The following problem comes from the Bonus Socius (Good Companion) Manuscript dated to the 13th century.  While white has a clear and easy win and a number of moves lead to mate in 3, only one move leads to mate in two.  Can you find it?  

White to move and mate in 2. 

Does it matter what waiting move you play?  I tried moving Ke2... wouldn't that net the same result?

An interesting curiosity is that the pieces moved differently back then, except for - king, rook and knight!

Yes it matters. If you play Ke2 then black can play 1...Nf7 and if 2. Rh8 then ... Nxh8 or if 2. Ra8 then the king can move to the 7th rank and the Knight shields the King. 

???whats the problem Ke2?!he loses his knight and mate in 4moves!

sorry...i did not see that it is mate in 2..

As I said before, its sometimes the subtle moves that we miss, since our minds are tuned to the more aggressive moves. I really learned a lot from this puzzle. Thanks!

lol, I liked this puzzle.  Although, I presonally would have played Rd7+ then taken the knight, then mate.  But.. this way works too.

What a clever puzzle to be composed between inquisitions.  It's nice to know spare time existed for the "right thinking" crowd back then.

  Really an excellent puzzle!

The reason that only Rhg7 works is that any other move that may result in checkmate does NOT GAURANTEE mate in only TWO moves.  That is the challenge of the puzzle.  It is no great effort to just win a game that is in a strong winning position, the challenge is to do it in as few moves as possible.  If you want some great reading about that philosophy try a fun novel by Orson Card, "Ender's Game."  It won't teach you about chess, but it will teach you about strategy.

Peter, the Knight could block the check on the 8th file without the waiting move.

Only seen that there now and realised how stupid that suggestion was.

cuendillar wrote: An interesting curiosity is that the pieces moved differently back then, except for - king, rook and knight!

---

I know this to be true, but I am not sure exactly how they moved.  I think, from memory of what I read at some time,

queen moved 1 square diagonally

Bishop  2 squares diagonally, may have had choice of 1 or 2, do not know

pawn just one forward (no choice of 2 on 1st move) and (again I think) captured diagonally as today.  En passant obviously did not exist.

No castling.

I know nothing of pawn promoting.

Before, and even shortly after the rule change, mid to early 1400's, the king had to move if in check, ie no interposition although capturing the offending piece might have been permitted.

Does anyone know the truth?  I am no authority.  I once played a Japanese chess where the "knights" could not move backwards and good stategy was to leave them unmoved through the game. 

nice !

easy...but nice

Here is a link to the way that chess was played several centuries ago. What a weak piece the Chancellor (Queen) was!!

http://www.ancientchess.com/pages/rules-ancient.htm

Thank you cwceaser.  It was indeed an interesting description and complete.  I was surprised to see that I was generally right although they give no mention of the king having to move if checked, ie interposition and possibly even capture not legal.  I assume their assumption is correct that the ancient Persian game and medieval Europian games were played the same.

Very cool and extremely helpful for a newbie like me.

Kc2 and Ke2 while winning fail to mate in 2.  On these moves black can play 1...Nf7 and if 2. Rh8+ then ... Nxh8 or if 2. Ra8+ then the king can move to the 7th rank and the Knight shields the King.