Very elegant setting for so many zz mates! Especially the domination of (Bh8) is impressive!
Good mate in two (462)
Sort:
@Arisktotle" By one of the greatest composersof all time,shows the record of 3 grimshaws with wonderful delicacy" (the authors words almost mirror yours.) ..I had trouble finding the key since it was already set up, that had me mentally locked out of that subtle move that was basically the same position...There is only thirteen men and it gets three extra mates besides the record with no duals.
puzzle rates more views
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2. Thanks so much for posting. Morse wrote: "I believe that artistry is the problemist's primary aim, and tasks and records serve to show how the artistic medium and material may be stretched." He has three rarely awarded marks: * means good; ** means masterpiece and dagger means exceptional record regardless of artistic merit. This one is **. And is the kind of position I would use to seduce a player into getting into composition. It makes me want to start making more orthodox compositions for a start.
Do you have the book?Yes this is a great puzzle.I thought making the title too superlative would deter some people, seems like the greatest ever is usually not so good. I found another book on line of puzzles by Touw Hian Bwee.i have been looking at that book of puzzles by a master composer, he has several puzzles in Morse book all marked with a* which sent me looking for info on him.There is a 3 mover in the book on line that I am going to post as soon as I solve it....I would imagine it would be quite a rush to have people solving and admiring a puzzle you composed.If you compose them I will try to solve.
Mar 27, 2017
0
#7
LOL I literally solved this in 5 seconds.
I thought ok, one of this pieces of sh!t. Just find the move that looks like it does the least. I guess Bb3 and it worked!
Mar 27, 2017
0
#8
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
Some people think playing chess is totally impractical.So what right.
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
LOL I literally solved this in 5 seconds.
I thought ok, one of this pieces of sh!t. Just find the move that looks like it does the least. I guess Bb3 and it worked!
A bright sixpence for the clever young lad! Of course, #2 are known to be right at the shallowest end of the difficulty curve. No point complaining until you've tested yourself against a bunch of harder problems: go and solve some #3, #4, #5+. Even within the #2 world, block problems like this are well known to be easier to solve than threat problems. There are also chapters in Morse devoted to changed play: where there are differences between set play (where Black plays first without waiting for White) and the main solution. And if you want a real challenge, compose something original and artistic yourself! Difficulty of solution is certainly one artistic factor, although not really highlighted in this problem. The real pleasure that one can get from 462 is in the way that so few pieces can force such rich and unique behaviour.
anselan wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
LOL I literally solved this in 5 seconds.
I thought ok, one of this pieces of sh!t. Just find the move that looks like it does the least. I guess Bb3 and it worked!
A bright sixpence for the clever young lad! Of course, #2 are known to be right at the shallowest end of the difficulty curve. No point complaining until you've tested yourself against a bunch of harder problems: go and solve some #3, #4, #5+. Even within the #2 world, block problems like this are well known to be easier to solve than threat problems. There are also chapters in Morse devoted to changed play: where there are differences between set play (where Black plays first without waiting for White) and the main solution. And if you want a real challenge, compose something original and artistic yourself! Difficulty of solution is certainly one artistic factor, although not really highlighted in this problem. The real pleasure that one can get from 462 is in the way that so few pieces can force such rich and unique behaviour.
Also you guessed the key and it was easy to prove because of it being animated.From what you said I bet you missed most of the puzzle. One of the draw backs of making the diagram interactive.The simple move of the key that can be missed because of it's simplicity is another beauty of the puzzle.
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
Zugzwang does happen in practical chess.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#14
sameez1 wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
Some people think playing chess is totally impractical.So what right.
I'm not talking about opinion, I'm saying it's not practical to playing chess well.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#15
anselan wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
LOL I literally solved this in 5 seconds.
I thought ok, one of this pieces of sh!t. Just find the move that looks like it does the least. I guess Bb3 and it worked!
A bright sixpence for the clever young lad! Of course, #2 are known to be right at the shallowest end of the difficulty curve. No point complaining until you've tested yourself against a bunch of harder problems: go and solve some #3, #4, #5+. Even within the #2 world, block problems like this are well known to be easier to solve than threat problems. There are also chapters in Morse devoted to changed play: where there are differences between set play (where Black plays first without waiting for White) and the main solution. And if you want a real challenge, compose something original and artistic yourself! Difficulty of solution is certainly one artistic factor, although not really highlighted in this problem. The real pleasure that one can get from 462 is in the way that so few pieces can force such rich and unique behaviour.
I've solved 10 move puzzles (without moving the pieces, calculated all the way to the end, not endgames either, real tactical middle games).
I've spent tons of hours solving.
I was being harsh on this puzzle, only half serious. They're fun, and have artistic value. If you try to solve them like a normal puzzle it can take a long time to figure out the solution.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#16
4xel wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
Zugzwang does happen in practical chess.
Not like this it doesn't! 
I also tend to dislike puzzles where any logical move would win a real game.
In a real game you'd just play Rxa7 and black would resign (or would have resigned long before this position).
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
I also tend to dislike puzzles where any logical move would win a real game.
In a real game you'd just play Rxa7 and black would resign (or would have resigned long before this position).
I dsilike chess games because most of them do not help me to solve real puzzles. They are full of errors and totally impractical when it comes to improving my solving skills. I really laughed when I saw Magnus Carlsen retain his WC by solving the simplest of 'checkmate in two' problems and was universally applauded for it. And it had an awful 'checking' key move as well! Is that all that chessplayers can bring to the party?
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
anselan wrote:
The title is misleading - this is more than a "good" mate in 2.
They're totally impractical. I really dislike them.
The way to solve is just pretend it's black's move, and notice how no matter where he moves it's mate. Then just move the piece that doesn't take away any of those mates.
Some people think playing chess is totally impractical.So what right.
I'm not talking about opinion, I'm saying it's not practical to playing chess well.
Your statement is not your opinion? btw thanks for the the bump I did want more people to see the puzzle.
Please make a statement on my other puzzle BWEE inTWO (561)
Qe5# best move
White mates in two by L.I. Loshinsky 1930