"Find the best move" puzzle books. Question!!!

I have started working with Ray Cheng's "Practical Chess Exercises." The instructions are "find the best move."

OK. In problem 1 he said "find the best move for black."  I did. Looked up the answer and I was right BUT then in the answer he continued with what white's reply  move was, and then black's win.

This goes throughout the book.

Now I can see how doing this sort of puzzle using software would be fine, because you move and then the computer opponent moves,and you answer.

But in a book, how do you KNOW white would have made that move? The answer in the book tells you that white does that and then black's response is written in.

This is a good teaching book if I could just get over the hurdle of wondering if I pick the best move then why does Cheng continue in the answer with other moves.

In a chess game we do not know what the response will be from our opponent to our "best move."

I hope I have asked this clearly. Not sure.

stwils

When trying to solve the puzzle to find your best move you have to consider what your opponent's best response might be -- in the solutions either the author is giving the best reply for your opponent, or if it's a puzzle from a game, the move a strong player (like a GM) played.

He continues the solution because moves are never made in isolation, the only reason one move is good is because there are more good moves to follow :)

Also it's not uncommon for players to play "the right move for the wrong reason."  By continuing the solution the author gives you additional chances to learn. You may think you understand the position, and choose the correct first move, but if the next few moves in the solution are too surprising then it's likely in a real game you wouldn't have played well (or even lost quickly) because you really didn't see what was coming or what to do next.

It's probably showing you the opponent's best move or toughest defense. Or, if it's from an actual game, it's showing you what was actually played. The idea is that if you're going to sacrifice a piece or whatever, it must stand up to whatever your opponent plays. If he has even one response that leaves him an advantage or winning position, then your move is a bad one. Publishing a full line encourages you to calculate a line beyond your first move, in order for the point of that first move to be clear.

Yes it's much more instructive to see how the move actually played out against a strong player (I'm assuming), or the author is trying to show best defense, and how it's broken down. If the author feels that there are more good moves for the other side, then either he indeed gives alternative moves, or still only plays one line as sort of a "sample line", just to illustrate what might happen, not being so concerned with the absolute best moves. Why do you so strongly want to find one good move and forget the rest? Besides a move isn't good unless it has a good follow up intended or plan.

If you understand the idea behind a move, then indeed you should be able to react to how your opponent counters it.

I heard that the Tactics Time books are also good.  

I had this book, but lent it to a coworker who ended up getting fired before I could get it back. Loved that book!