I'm going to say it...I hate chess.com's puzzles

I totally get that the point of solving puzzles is to find the best move, But if you make a move that let's say setup mate in 3 when there was a move that mate in 2, you shouldn't get the same amount of lost points as if you make a blunder. In a real game, if I found mate in 3, I don't look for a better move, I play my mate in 3, the clock is ticking, why wasting time and potentially lose the game on time by searching for better.

If you do enough of them you'll see the progressive flow of how they want you to think more. When you first start many are just find a check and the rest just falls in line, after awhile a setup move might be first and so on. Then you might have some that are just a piece capture it appears but the position after might be the actual puzzle so you must capture it a certain way or with a certain piece. Just make sure you solve the ones you get wrong after, you'll be surprised at how you remember them eventually.

Yea they are frustrating at times.

Yes, I think this is exactly the kind of thing we've been talking about, although the examples given are extreme.  I wish I'd saved that puzzle I was talking about before... the opponent had 3 options to get out of check, but stuck on a packed back rank. It could block with hung queen, block with rook supported only by king, or move king. All 3 were an inevitable forced mate result. It hung the queen... As a human, I will take that queen with check every time, to remove counterplay venom should I stuff up somehow. The computer though, just goes 'wrong!' and moves on to the next puzzle, (due to the specific format.) Other times it plays out 5 trades a side from a balanced position to come out a pawn up... I guess that means A. I will be eventually able to promote a pawn, with accurate play, and B. That the opponent has the advantage if I don't do those trades, and if they nut out whatever the computer's line is, like a Carlsen bot. Like the OP pointed out, it's trying to show you to stop being attached to your queen. Lol. In a real game, you better get it right though. ;b . Part of it is growing up with puzzles that were almost always checkmate/stalemate positions. There's also the 'please show me the outcome so I can learn' factor. Often you're just left scratching your head.  

The puzzles at Chess.com, and the review process, are as good or better than any other site. I regularly do puzzles here and at another site, and my ratings run less than 100 points of each other. I’d say they are doing what they are designed to do. 

Stil1: I understand what you are saying, but I still think that the topic is about something else.

Also, your example would be a faulty puzzle. Every legal move wins, breaking the very first rule of puzzles: there must be only 1 solution.

I think I agree or at least understand every reply that has been made.  First, like I said, it's frustrating and I'm tilting.  I completely understand that there is a method to the madness -- in order to change the way you think about and approach chess, it's going to involve some pain and frustration.  I wasn't initially going to do this, but I've changed my mind.  Lichess puzzles seem to make more sense because they're inaccuracies and mistakes from actual games.  I'm sure chess.com does the same thing, but I think there are many where it's an actual puzzle not derived from a game, but they're trying to catch you with a gotcha.

I also work a lot of puzzles with Chess King apps on various themes.  Again, I just feel like a lot of chess.com's puzzles are just gotcha after gotcha.  And as some others have mentioned, if I can find a forced mate in 3, but there's also a mate in 2, losing points is wrong...mate is mate if it's forced.  I'm not going to burn time trying to find mate in 2 when I've found forced mate in 3.

I also think the time expectations are kind of unrealistic.  But there again, maybe I'm just not very good.

i have felt the same as op at times

not so much for the “i see mate in 3 but there is a mate in two” puzzles

but more for the puzzles that arent really tactics

maybe chess.com just calls it puzzles and not limit itself to tactics

you will get puzzles where the solution is a one mover that holds the entire position together and every other move gives away advantage

or those really bizarre duds that often show up in the very early ones in a puzzles rush- especially when it isnt the usual back rank mate ones at the start

you get brand new puzzles that havent been seen before
———-

but one way to look at it is in a puzzle the wrong move is a failed puzzle

in a game it is possible to find maybe not the very best tactic in a position but one that is still winning (the very things op mentions in post)

and when you go over your game you will see the more precise continuation- just dont go easy in yourself and really hammer the tactics from your own games because you are familiar with how the position evolved and the tactics from game will be more “personal” and, thus, better chance to stick in “pattern recognition memory”


it is easy to get tunnel vision with puzzle scores and ratings and forget that it is learning and building up the needed pattern recognition to capitalize on or defend against in games

———
i have said it before as well

i am not savvy with setting up a puzzle repertoire and really customizing the chess.com puzzle feature and using app exclusively doesnt help in this regard

i think it is possible to customize and maximize puzzle trainer for solid tactic training on chess.com but i am terrible at this

but just logging on each day and cranking out some puzzles doesnt really “train” tactics- it “tests” them

personally, i have found training tactics from books (online books) to help me more with learning patterns and drilling them

There are some limitations to computer-generated puzzles like those on this and similar sites. The computer will make moves a human would not. This is why a puzzle book which is checked by humans is better and the solution feels more natural. Good examples of that would be Peter Giannato's Everyone's first chess book and The Woodpecker method by Smith/Tikkanen.

I always use the custom option, since I'm here to learn. Repeating the puzzle immediately with my own assessment of what it teaches. For learning do them slowly AND repeat them.

Very funny post, OP. I think that the puzzles come across as un-intuitive to beginners, well because beginners haven't built up much intuition about chess positions yet.

There is always one move that trumps the others in puzzles, and this is an important skill to learn to be better at chess because it reinforces the "See a good move, look for a better move" lesson.

There might be what appears like a mate-in-4, but you miss that his queen can block the last check...The crazy queen sac (which was another line you mightn't have considered for example) led to forced mate in 3, so it's better.

As much as people hate studying puzzles, there is a direct correlation to puzzle solving ability (ie calculation, positional intuition) and chess skill (rating). Not many titled players say that they hate solving puzzles, cause they have needed to solve puzzles for years in order to assist them attain chess improvement and mastery. You want to study math at college, well you need building blocks like arithmetic, pre-algebra, etc. It's the same with chess, you need to know checkmate patterns, and opening/middlegame/endgame tactics, to reach a higher level.

I hate them too, not because I don't find them intuitive but because I'm trash at them

And with chess.com puzzles the player's second best move isn't even close; it's almost* always at least 3 points worse.  (*almost: rare cases of alternate mate-in-2's have been found).  If anyone finds a counterexample that would be interesting to know about, please share.

 This is why i dont upgrade for premium

Never get dishearten. Cranking out this sites puzzles is the way forward.

I get your frustration, i have felt it too. But the reason you feel that the winning tactic is "bizarre and unconventional" is because  you are inexperienced. The aim of the game is to checkmate the opponents king - that's what the puzzles are trying to teach you. You don't become a good chess player by finding mediocre moves, you have to learn looking for the best moves.

The good thing is as you get a higher puzzle rating the puzzles tend to be very realistic and force you to find quiet and defensive moves, moves that always appear in games. Also, especially above 3000 puzzles tend to force you to look at the puzzle in a very deep way that has many different ideas and layers.

the reason why chess puzzle make nosense its because the master/grandmaster who play that round are completely stupid and they dont know what they're doing, we just spotted the brilliant move/excellent move the chess.com told us that was a wrong move and they force us to go for inacurrate and missed win move, how stupid can chess puzzle be?

How can this even be considered a puzzle? The point of puzzles is to give the players positions to solve where there is only 1 good move they can play and every other move misses a forced mate or has major consequences when played like turning a winning position into a draw or loss or losing almost all of your advantage points. Puzzles where some or all possible moves retain your advantage aren't puzzles at all.

Ha. What a great original post. 😄 Yeah, I’ve been frustrated sometimes too. Wow, I just won a rook! But oops, sorry: I missed a mate in three. Haha. What can one do? I don’t worry too much. I’ve tried to slow down, and have tried to follow the advice that other poster’s have already given: when you think you’ve found a good move, look for a better one.