A nice tactic.
Sort:
Do not carelessly play the knight to the wrong square 
Why is 3.Ng6+ "wrong"?
V1500Cygni wrote:
Why is 3.Ng6+ "wrong"?
It's great - slightly better than the OP-move - but both should win! And of course, the puzzle should have stopped a move earlier to prevent a choice of winning moves!
V1500Cygni wrote:
Why is 3.Ng6+ "wrong"?
It is not, i am new to posting stuff on here so i didn't know how to make both options correct.
shisharka0 wrote:
V1500Cygni wrote:
Why is 3.Ng6+ "wrong"?
It is not, i am new to posting stuff on here so i didn't know how to make both options correct.
Unfortunately, that is impossible. The closest you come is by adding other options to the analysis but the solver will only see those after solving (or not solving). It is one of the many shortcomings of chess.com's puzzle interface.
The standard way to handle the situation is to stop the solving before the choice between correct alternatives is on the table. Often, when you don't understand the solution of a chess.com puzzle, this is the reason. The position appears misty to you but the puzzle aborts because you are about to have a choice of at least 2 winning move and chess.com won't allow it!
Arisktotle wrote:
shisharka0 wrote:
V1500Cygni wrote:
Why is 3.Ng6+ "wrong"?
It is not, i am new to posting stuff on here so i didn't know how to make both options correct.
Unfortunately, that is impossible. The closest you come is by adding other options to the analysis but the solver will only see those after solving (or not solving). It is one of the many shortcomings of chess.com's puzzle interface.
The standard way to handle the situation is to stop the solving before the choice between correct alternatives is on the table. Often, when you don't understand the solution of a chess.com puzzle, this is the reason. The position appears misty to you but the puzzle aborts because you are about to have a choice of at least 2 winning move and chess.com won't allow it!
Another way to deal with this is to make one of the two winning moves either illegal or really bad. That way there's only one real solution.
على من العب
Ok
KieferSmith wrote:
Another way to deal with this is to make one of the two winning moves either illegal or really bad. That way there's only one real solution.
How do you make a move illegal and tell it to the puzzle interface? I know a Go-puzzle manager where you can block or force certain moves - a great option - but it does not exist in chess.com. Obviously you can't say in text that 3. Ng6 is blocked since such directions give away essential information about the first 2 solution moves.
Arisktotle wrote:
KieferSmith wrote:
Another way to deal with this is to make one of the two winning moves either illegal or really bad. That way there's only one real solution.
How do you make a move illegal and tell it to the puzzle interface? I know a Go-puzzle manager where you can block or force certain moves - a great option - but it does not exist in chess.com. Obviously you can't say in text that 3. Ng6 is blocked since such directions give away essential information about the first 2 solution moves.
By... maybe putting a piece on that square so that no friendly piece can move to that square...?
KieferSmith wrote:
By... maybe putting a piece on that square so that no friendly piece can move to that square...?
It's often possible to fix dual solution lines in a puzzle but it is not easy as most changes are accompanied by disturbing side effects. And when you are successful often the original poster won't like it as they prefer their position which occurred in a real game of their own or of some super GMs. Just dropping the last move(s) of the solution is less controversial and explains why chess.com favours it.