FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
is not hard
is very easy
COMMENT UNDER REVIEW
Yes, 5. Qe7! is a mating net but no check. I always have problems to calculate unforced moves. There are so many options then...
Maybe also 5. h4 followed by 6. g4# works.
Ok, 1. Nc3+ is checkmate in six. Thank you!
In blitz the length of a mating line might decide the game. I often don't find the fastest way and lost sometimes on time forfeit...
For me, the length of checkmate can have the opposite effect in blitz: I could find an obscure mate in 3 and burn a minute of my time or find a familiar mate in 4 and only use about 15 seconds. Thus, in fast chess, if I see a line that is just obviously winning, I will go for it right away. All of this, however, ultimately depends on the position.
Instead of 5. Qf7+, White should play 5. Qe7 followed by 6. g4#. If Black tries 5. ... g5 then obviously 6. Qe6# does the trick. In my opinion, the length of the mate does not matter (though its practicality and aesthetics do matter); a win is a win. I again am not a supporter of Occam's razor, but this is merely my point of view.
Edit: Ah, I missed that @KeepCalmAndCovfefe found the 5. Qe7 line and replied first. Good find!
Usually it is the complexity rather than the length. Wasting time to find a 3 move mate when there is a mechanical 7 move mate is the perfect example of why these problems are NOT testing anything chess related, rather some artificial aesthetic. This is most perfectly shown when a longer mate which begins with a capture is rejected -- beginning with a capture when shown a board with no history is by far the most sensible route (in case of 50 move or repeated position draw risks). The fabricated aesthetic begins to trump practical chances. #headexplodes
1. Ng5+ Kd5 2. Qb7+ Kd4 3. Nf3#