No, The Puzzle Is Not "Wrong"

The issue comes up at least once per week:  "The opponent blundered.  So the puzzle is wrong.  How am I supposed to plan if the opponent just blunders?"

First, let's get terminology straight:  a blunder materially alters the course of the game [a win turns into a draw or a loss].  A sub-optimal move merely is worse than the optimal move but doesn't change the outcome.

For example:  if I have a K+Q+R v K and I lose my Rook [or my Queen], that is not a Blunder because I'm still going to win the game [assuming I don't lose the other piece].

However, if I allow a stalemate, that's a blunder:  what should have been a win turns into a draw.

Puzzles feature sub-optimal moves by the opponent [not the solver]; this does not degrade the value of the puzzle.

Also, remember that in a game analysis, there are 4 classes of sub-optimal moves:  from best to worse, they are Inaccuracy, Mistake, Miss, and Blunder.  The moves in the puzzle people complain about are NOT Blunders.

.

A position analysis contains optimal moves from both sides.

A puzzle contains optimal moves only for the solver.  Concluding that a puzzle is flawed because it contains sub-optimal opponent moves is like complaining that a car is flawed because it doesn't fly:  cars are not designed to fly, so using flight to judge a car's design is irrelevant.

Puzzles are not designed to contain only optimal moves by the opponent so the presence of sub-optimal moves is irrelevant also.

The point of the puzzle is to highlight a certain theme[s]:  back rank mate, 7th rank weakness, pin, skewer, X-Ray, etc.

Sometimes, the theme is best demonstrated by showing the tactic and just ending the puzzle, even though there still might be a long struggle ahead.  Or, the opponent might play an obviously sub-optimal move [ie allowing checkmate vs sacrificing material and slogging on, even though the evaluation is -8].

Puzzle solvers need to understand that this is not a bug; it's a feature.  The FIDE Masters who curated the puzzle are surely aware of every nuance you can raise and probably a lot more.  If a sub-optimal move is chosen, it's likely because they thought it would best demonstrate the theme.

.

Do I criticize an artist because his painting of a bowl of fruit was "wrong"?  How about a musician?  An actor?  A writer?

No, I don't.  What they're doing is their interpretation of something. By definition, it can't be wrong.  I may have made different choices but that's my opinion.

.

For those who complain that they can't plan for sub-optimal opponent play, doesn't that happen all of the time in your own games [both by you and your opponent]?  Since when does the opponent make 100% optimal moves?  Never.  You have to be prepared for any and all alternatives.  Puzzles are no different.

So before you conclude that the puzzle is wrong/incomplete/stupid/, consider what theme was being demonstrated and that you should have learned the lesson regardless of opponent response.

If this doesn't convince you, go talk to the curator and get it straight from the horse's mouth.

And, of course, I could be completely wrong in my interpretation.

Here's an example:  with K+B+N v K, there is a certain pattern to follow to achieve checkmate.  When I get to a certain point, I know I have a forced mate in 19 moves.  I played it with Stockfish running and it noted that I "missed a win" at a certain juncture in this 19-move sequence.  Do I care?  No.  Because I know what I'm doing will win.  It's what I learned and memorized.  Faster, more efficient methods exist but if I'm under pressure to achieve the W, I'm going to stick with what I know, not what's optimal.

To translate to puzzles, do I care if my opponent has a better response?  No.  I did my part by finding the optimal idea and how to execute it.  What he does is his business.

Here's another example:  let's say I use a tactic and end up with K+Q v K:  does the puzzle need to show the actual checkmate?  Of course not.  That checkmate pattern is the subject of a different lesson; it's not the goal of the puzzle.  Showing the # would simply detract emphasis from the tactic that got us there.

.

Those who insist something is "wrong" with the puzzle because the engine shows a better response for Black are relying on engine output without knowing when to use the output and how.

This is like following GPS instructions to drive straight and going into the river because the bridge is gone.  "The GPS told me to go straight!"  "Yeah but didn't you see that the bridge was gone?"

There's a scene in Aliens where Hudson has a device that tracks movement and it displays the aliens are only a few meters away.

"That's impossible.  They'd be inside the room already." - Hicks

"It's reading right!" - Hudson

"Well, you're not reading IT right." - Hicks

So Hudson climbs up on a table and lifts a ceiling tile and, of course, the aliens are all in the ceiling crawl space.

.

The analogy is that those who insist the engine is right aren't reading the output correctly:  it's telling them something that is being mis-interpreted.