16920 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I've recently been playing around with chess puzzle composition, and thought it was time to share one here. This isn't too difficult, but the theme is very pretty.
Hope you like it!
If you like my chess compositions, you may also want to check out my music compositions.
I clicked the link for Koltanowski, now I am kind of disappointed
Well thanks for the vote of confidence. :/
Check as a first move is a tad unconventional.
I like it.
I liked it too. I just want to see it re-worked without the check on move 1.
Why? All these puzzles try to be clever by a non check waiting move on move 1, it's just a pain submitting answers to every possible reply.
This is pretty nice.
Thanks guys, I appreciate the comments.
Personally, I like a check on move one, especially if it has psychological factors that make it look "wrong." Here the rook can be captured immediately, so the bishop clearance theme has to be found.
There are also three different mating patterns, depending on Black's second move, so those need to be found before commiting the clearance sac as well.
Don't feel discouraged by the foolishness of others!
I like the mate pattern. What Scottrf really right. This is giving healing to kind of that puzzle.
nice clean lines,to the point......i like it!
Are you just ttrying to illustrate the tactical device of deflection or an actual cretive composition? Speaking as a chessplayer that has solved thousands of chess compositions. The two pawns the queen and the rook at c7 are extraneous and are not involved in the solution at all. This creatively devalues the effort for me as a problem solver because in a composition every piece and pawn need to have some roll in the solution.
I appreciate the comment. I understand the ideal of piece economy in a study, and I find it an interesting tradition but not necessarily one I wanted to follow. This was a "mate-in-four" problem, and I probably should have labelled it that way.
The extra black pieces and pawns are there because the position looked unnatural to my eye without them, and I prefer to look at positions that look real. They may not add to the aesthetic of the problem, but I think they do add to the aesthetic of the initial position.
I lke your puzzle, but I must say I'm with the colours guy here.
Looking natural is not a "rule" in mate in x tradition, not having clutter is a "rule", it detracts.
I don't really agree, one of my favourite puzzles I've seen recently, plenty of the pieces do nothing:
If you strip them out, not only does it look less natural, but also shouts 'look here'.
I'd also like to point out that I didn't make it look natural in order to conform to a rule.
There are countless examples of puzzles with natural positions. Is the objection because I used the word "composition," instead of "puzzle?" If "composition" has a specific set of guidelines that define a genre, then I apologize for misusing the term.
Jamie, if you should ever enter this puzzle in a competition, those two pawns will either:
which would be a pitty, because it's clever.
That's what I mean about rules.
Competition wasn't even a consideration here, but if I ever decided to enter one, I would surely read and understand its rules.
I'm still wondering about the terminology question though. If I had simply called this "White mates in four," would there have been any objection?
Composition just means not taken from a game I believe.
Jamie, it's a nice puzzle, I'm just nitpicking
"mate in 4" would have made it worse, lol. Those are the ones that have to conform. Maybe it's "study" :)
In a few years from now everbody will play either 1.d4 or 1. c4
by chessmicky a few minutes ago
SO WHAT THE FUCK!!!
by bobbymac310 a few minutes ago
Dumbest chess.com comment of all times.
by GreedyPawnEater a few minutes ago
Is Ben Finegold as big a jerk as he seems in his videos?
by ArchdukeShrimp a few minutes ago
Do you know of any very
by GreedyPawnEater 4 minutes ago
Geller and Tal had positive records against Fischer. Why? Explain.
by chessmicky 5 minutes ago
e5, avoid or play it out? SF says e5!!
by uscftigerprowl 6 minutes ago
by GreedyPawnEater 6 minutes ago
by Hatty-Freeham 7 minutes ago
by Pikay 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!