Black is in zugzwang. :)
Struggling with mate in 2 moves (Yusupov)
Sort:
VibrantMoves wrote:
Black is in zugzwang. :)
That's a big clue as to what White should do :)
I will let the others find the move. :) 1st puzzle was pretty good. Thanks for posting!
If they have a much better reply on move one then the calculation wasn't entirely correct.
Mate in 2 exercises are obviously about training calculation, but specifically, since the variations are very short (only four ply deep -- yes four, not three!) the focus is on evaluating the initial position and finding LOTS of candidate moves. You of course want to make sure you have looked at all of the obvious things like checks, captures, and threats, and make sure you understand WHY those things don't work, and then look for ways to "fix" what didn't work. Most good mate in two positions don't start with a check, but beginner positions usually do. You should be able to very quickly find and calculate every single check, capture and threat in a matter of seconds in order to break through to more difficult positions. When I was doing lots of easy mate in 2's, I also did the training program in fritz where you find all checks and captures in a limited amount of time. For these initial positions you can also try drilling the first 450 positions from Polgar's brick which have some very creative mate in ones and mate in twos.
I'd also recommend reading the first chapter of Sam Nunn's 'Solving in Style' where he explains and demonstrates several specific techniques for solving "two-movers" as he calls them. I'm sure you know that, in addition to being a strong GM, Sam Nunn is an award-winning chess problem solver and creator. Here are some excerpts:
- The objective is to find the unique first move for white called the "key", which leads to mate in one against any black reply.
- The key will probably NOT be an obvious move (he later says that good two-movers do NOT start with check, and he's pretty critical of puzzles that start with check!!). He also just assumes that you have already calculated all checks and captures before using these more advanced techniques ("when there is...no obvious mating idea in sight").
- Sometimes composers will use paradoxical keys that actually limit white's options or expand black's, like a self-pin or a move that unpins black, or a move that exposes white to a check and the reply leads to mate.
- specifically, he suggests you start by looking for keys that put black in zugzwang. Often black will have irrelevant moves that don't allow zugzwang, in which case zugzwang is out of the question. Then he gives a cool example where the key puts black in zugzwang.
- the way to find zugzwang keys is to explore what would happen if it were actually black's move.
- he notes good composers attempt to fool solvers by arranging tempting moves (keys) that appear to win, but in fact lose to a subtle refutation. So you should always actively search for cool refutations. That is part of the fun. These are called "tries".
This does not do justice to his ideas and the way he walks through specific examples is incredibly enlightening. But hopefully this gives you a sense of how awesome his book is if you really want to learn how to become a good solver. Also, his chapter on "two-movers" lays the foundation for his subsequent chapters on more complicated "three-" and "four-movers", and much longer problems.
mashanator wrote:
The second mate in 2 problem (#20) is pretty difficult. You eventually realise you have to realise no queen moves that work (I was staring at 1. Qg7 for a fair while before I realised 1...Be8! stopped the threats of 2. Nc5# and 2. Nf8#) and start considering alternatives. Eventually you begin to realise that you have no real move that improves your position - everything is optimally placed for either Qe8# or Qf6# - and you have to wait. 1. Kc7! forces Black to step on his toes and cede control of f6 or e8. Very instructive indeed.
Absolutely. I wrote Qg7 on my notebook and scored a big fat zero for that one. I didn't see black's only correct reply, Be8, pinning the Knight. The answer is of course Kc7 as you rightly say, and it is the sort of problem that looks easy once you see the answer (black in zugzwang).
Doirse wrote:
Mate in 2 exercises are obviously about training calculation, but specifically, since the variations are very short (only four ply deep -- yes four, not three!) the focus is on evaluating the initial position and finding LOTS of candidate moves. You of course want to make sure you have looked at all of the obvious things like checks, captures, and threats, and make sure you understand WHY those things don't work, and then look for ways to "fix" what didn't work. Most good mate in two positions don't start with a check, but beginner positions usually do. You should be able to very quickly find and calculate every single check, capture and threat in a matter of seconds in order to break through to more difficult positions. When I was doing lots of easy mate in 2's, I also did the training program in fritz where you find all checks and captures in a limited amount of time. For these initial positions you can also try drilling the first 450 positions from Polgar's brick which have some very creative mate in ones and mate in twos.
I'd also recommend reading the first chapter of Sam Nunn's 'Solving in Style' where he explains and demonstrates several specific techniques for solving "two-movers" as he calls them. I'm sure you know that, in addition to being a strong GM, Sam Nunn is an award-winning chess problem solver and creator. Here are some excerpts:
- The objective is to find the unique first move for white called the "key", which leads to mate in one against any black reply.
- The key will probably NOT be an obvious move (he later says that good two-movers do NOT start with check, and he's pretty critical of puzzles that start with check!!). He also just assumes that you have already calculated all checks and captures before using these more advanced techniques ("when there is...no obvious mating idea in sight").
- Sometimes composers will use paradoxical keys that actually limit white's options or expand black's, like a self-pin or a move that unpins black, or a move that exposes white to a check and the reply leads to mate.
- specifically, he suggests you start by looking for keys that put black in zugzwang. Often black will have irrelevant moves that don't allow zugzwang, in which case zugzwang is out of the question. Then he gives a cool example where the key puts black in zugzwang.
- the way to find zugzwang keys is to explore what would happen if it were actually black's move.
- he notes good composers attempt to fool solvers by arranging tempting moves (keys) that appear to win, but in fact lose to a subtle refutation. So you should always actively search for cool refutations. That is part of the fun. These are called "tries".
This does not do justice to his ideas and the way he walks through specific examples is incredibly enlightening. But hopefully this gives you a sense of how awesome his book is if you really want to learn how to become a good solver. Also, his chapter on "two-movers" lays the foundation for his subsequent chapters on more complicated "three-" and "four-movers", and much longer problems.
This is a very helpful post and will give me some techniques for the last 3 puzzlers. Thank you! I might get Polgar's brick. Maybe not the most portable of books...
And remember you can actually earn titles for problem solving!! It's an entire world in and of itself...but you have to have the basics down, which is being able to find and accurately calculate all checks and captures very fast.
Doirse wrote:
And remember you can actually earn titles for problem solving!! It's an entire world in and of itself...but you have to have the basics down, which is being able to find and accurately calculate all checks and captures very fast.
By the way, it's John Nunn you were thinking of, not Sam Nunn. There was incidentally an interview with him on chess24 recently. A nice read.
lol, yes of course I meant John!!!
Those were both really tricky. This is his first book? First one happened to be quick, second one, wow, took me way too long.
I see you already got lots of advice.
I guess what I'd say is be efficient, don't recalculate. Pick a candidate move (the first move I thought of for the 2nd puzzle was Qd7) then, when it doesn't work (Kf6) don't look at Qd7 again.
I can tell when I'm out of practice because I'll calculate things over and over in circles. If you trust your calculation (so you're not re-checking things), and you try to improve variations (how do I stop the king from going to f6?) then even if you don't get the solution in the end you'll probably learn something good (oh, Rd6 looks completely suicidal, but it does cover f6, next time I'll look at every move that satisfies my condition no matter how crazy it looks).
leiph18 wrote:
Those were both really tricky. This is his first book? First one happened to be quick, second one, wow, took me way too long.
I see you already got lots of advice.
I guess what I'd say is be efficient, don't recalculate. Pick a candidate move (the first move I thought of for the 2nd puzzle was Qd7) then, when it doesn't work (Kf6) don't look at Qd7 again.
I can tell when I'm out of practice because I'll calculate things over and over in circles. If you trust your calculation (so you're not re-checking things), and you try to improve variations (how do I stop the king from going to f6?) then even if you don't get the solution in the end you'll probably learn something good (oh, Rd6 looks completely suicidal, but it does cover f6, next time I'll look at every move that satisfies my condition no matter how crazy it looks).
Yep, this is his first book. This lesson is the hardest one so far. I'm half way through the book. Some lessons (like mating motifs or double check), looking back, are simple (although it didn't feel like it at first).
That's all good advice, I am actually finding that my variations are less repetative now that I've done the lesson, which is progress!
I'm passing the lessons but it's hard and it's forcing me to calculate ahead and improve tactical vision. The book is probably a touch too avanced... "improvement only happens when we are pushed to the limit of our current understanding", or words to that effect, as the Aagaard, Shaw and Yusupov clan (as well as others from Quality Chess) like to point out...
It's a really good book. Like others have said, tough but doable.
In a real game I'd play 1.cxb8=Q+,Kxc6 2.Qb5+,Kc7 3.Qd7# because I'd quickly find that it wins by force and black has no stalemate nonsense.
It's a bad problem because the mate in 2 isn't essential. For mate in two it's 1.Rd7,Nxc6 2.cxb8=Q# or 1...Kxc6 2.cxb8=N# to both attack the king and defend the rook. The rook and bishops wall off the king's potential escape squares so using board vision we can greatly reduce our choice of candidates.
The problems are quite a specific type of mate problem which might not have themes or winning / not winning as their aim. They are meant to be manufactured in a way to be very difficult to solve in 2 without going through all the moves. Yusupov says:
"What is the use of calculating a long and correct variation if your opponent has a much better reply on move 1? (...) Exercises with mate in two moves are very well suited for training in the art of calculating short variations with great accuracy. This skill should reduce blunders".