More castling.
Armand Lapierre, 1959.
(7+7) White to move, mate in two.
W. Langstaff, 1922.
(5+3) (RV) White to move, mate in two.
Castling Chess Puzzles
Sort:
Snail28 wrote:
Riten wrote:
Why did you use 3 black knights? I know it is possible to have 3 knights but we hardly ever see those positions. I mean why didn't you put for example a rook on d2 instead of 2 knights? :P
If you think about it, the king must be blocked INDIRECTLY, so if you use two knights and a rook on d2 (supported), then black simply plays Rd1 after 0-0 !
OK, my bad :D but you understand my point. There are still some ways where you don't need to use 3 knights. For example put the rook on h2 instead of d2.
chaotic_iak wrote:
Involves castling in a different way. I forgot who made this one; I think Paul Erdos? EDIT: Nope, Samuel Loyd, 1859.
(2+4) White to move, mate in two.
If you don't know who composed a certain puzzle or study, just assume it is Sam Loyd you have about 1/2 odds to be right
I would like to point out that when you know a puzzle involves castling, then the problem is usually pretty easy. The hard part is identifying that a puzzle could be solved with castling.
Riten wrote:
Snail28 wrote:
Riten wrote:
Why did you use 3 black knights? I know it is possible to have 3 knights but we hardly ever see those positions. I mean why didn't you put for example a rook on d2 instead of 2 knights? :P
If you think about it, the king must be blocked INDIRECTLY, so if you use two knights and a rook on d2 (supported), then black simply plays Rd1 after 0-0 !
OK, my bad :D but you understand my point. There are still some ways where you don't need to use 3 knights. For example put the rook on h2 instead of d2.
Good point lal
[COMMENT DELETED]
chaotic_iak schreef:
More castling.
Armand Lapierre, 1959.
(7+7) White to move, mate in two.
W. Langstaff, 1922.
(5+3) (RV) White to move, mate in two.
@chaotic_iak: Your diagram is OK but it doesn't show the idea to the max. See this version: Mate in 2. Explanation is in the solution.
@snail28: I have paraphrased your puzzle to exploit a hidden feature. Besides your mate in 1 move for white, there is now also a black mate in 2 moves. Do you see it?
@snail28: There is; read the comment in the solution!
Here's a really simple one that I recently saw on another thread on these forums:
Not totally obvious but still easy. White to play and win.
Cool!
Just for fun, here is an absurd puzzle that I made awhile ago.
Here’s a much longer one that I made yesterday.
Well done, RewanDemontay! You are getting the hang of making correct problems. Some things you might attempt next are; include a sacrifice in the solution and/or start the solution with a non-checking move. These things are not easy to achieve; you will have to work on them for a while.
@Arisktotle Believe me, I have been. I am active in the Matplus chess forums. Making a chess problem dual free is something that I strive to do. I also make orignal chess problems on Puzzling Stack Exchange now and then.
I believe you! I only have the small window on your achievements on chess.com. Forgive me if I misjudge your abilities in the puzzle field. Anyway, the things I mentioned are worthwhile objectives. Commonly problem solutions start with a silent (non-checking) move though there are exceptions - for instance when combining a problem with a retrograde motif.
snailmate... LOL