Isn't that what I posted? Remember, the last time I posted, Adirandmen said there we two solutions, 1.b5, and 1.Ke3. So I got rid of b5.
I think you should have gotten rid of Ke3.
Isn't that what I posted? Remember, the last time I posted, Adirandmen said there we two solutions, 1.b5, and 1.Ke3. So I got rid of b5.
I think you should have gotten rid of Ke3.
If your intended idea was 1. O-O-O (threatening Rd3# and preventing f2) exd1=Q 2. Nxd1# this won't work as the king must not pass a threatened square during castling. O-O-O is an illegal move.
Thus there is unfortunately no legal way of realizing your presumable intended idea in a 2-mover. Anything that will capture the rook after castling will prevent the castling.
Yet it might be possible to make a good 3-mover with the same basic idea.
A 3-mover based on the same idea:
(still full of minor flaws, but basically working)
I'm just saying, you should put the more experienced problem makers in one group and the less experienced in another. (That was a suggestion)
How to discriminate?
Learning the basics of chess composition takes only minutes:
- Get your tactical idea(s).
- Find an idea for a key.
- Build the position.
- Check beauty of the key (Is it obvious, capture, check or threatmate?)
- Check correctness of the key with an engine. (Only solution?)
- Check legality of position.
- Check for duals and other minor issues (by hand and/or special software).
- Improve the flaws you found.
Once you read that you could compose good problems.
Learning more things is quite easy as well. Just read an article or two on wikipedia or google for related topics.
Turm_Breuberg, Are you sure you aren't a chess composer?