thanks for the Haddrell source! i think i found it in an old issue of CHESS but i lost or never had the solution. it's so long ago (over 50 years) that i ran across it!
If that is so, the archive to infeasible to search manually
https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives
Where is your image from, then?
#2 is rxd5
That move is illegal. The rook is pinned.
mate in one
Cant black pawn take? Or is board opposite way
mate in one
Cant black pawn take? Or is board opposite way
the pawn is pinned
Re #430: Interesting itinerary of (bBh7) from home! Sort of a bucket list of all the great places to visit on a chessboard for a light squared bishop 
Personally I always negate the castling rights in the FEN for a retro problem to emphasize that such rights may only be established by Retro Analysis and by composition conventions. Or paste just a picture of the diagram to hide all FEN information. There are a lot of dumb solvers here who would claim they solved it in a second as the diagram analysis permits castling.
Re #430: Interesting itinerary of (bBh7) from home! Sort of a bucket list of all the great places to visit on a chessboard for a light squared bishop
Personally I always negate the castling rights in the FEN for a retro problem to emphasize that such rights may only be established by Retro Analysis and by composition conventions. Or paste just a picture of the diagram to hide all FEN information. There are a lot of dumb solvers here who would claim they solved it in a second as the diagram analysis permits castling.
Not a lot of players look into the FEN so they probably assume castling is legal anyway, without exploring the retro analysis and proving it is possible. But it would be nice for them to find out how this position could be reached where white can castle, so I’ll try your advice next time.
Have you seen any other positions where a bishop must have completed a zigzag manoeuvre like this one? Or any other piece?
Not a lot of players look into the FEN so they probably assume castling is legal anyway, without exploring the retro analysis and proving it is possible. But it would be nice for them to find out how this position could be reached where white can castle, so I’ll try your advice next time.
Have you seen any other positions where a bishop must have completed a zigzag manoeuvre like this one? Or any other piece?
"Solvers" do not look at the FEN explicitly but many use the Analysis module which implicitly invokes the FEN by offering the option to castle. Similar is the "on-move" issue where black's start is provable but the FEN may be set differently like in #407: (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/hardest-mate-in-1-puzzles?page=21#comment-79387631). Communicating all things "retro" is a tough challenge in the chess.com environment.
I have never seen a longer itinerary for one bishop but there may be implementations in phases. Like in phase I a bishop or other piece travels A to B and in phase II - after an essential positional change - the bishop travels back B to A before coming home. Famous is Harry Goldsteen's retro "Charon" (http://www.probleemblad.nl/index.php/laatste-nieuws/1248-harry-goldsteen) where a king travels across the board and crosses the river "Charon" several times to do a job on the other side before returning. I don't recall how much the king is zigzagging but it is kind of obvious to assume that bishops zigzag more than other pieces
Yes- here's hy puzzle:
Not mate in 1...
"Solvers" do not look at the FEN explicitly ...
Some do, so it's a good idea to at least not have the FEN show the opposite.
But a very good puzzle when you take it seriously.
"Solvers" do not look at the FEN explicitly ...
Some do, so it's a good idea to at least not have the FEN show the opposite.
But a very good puzzle when you take it seriously.
True. but that would also disable the analysis lines. Like here where the move 0-0-0 shows up on top. And it tells me who is on move. I think such measures will need to be part of a bigger effort to create better puzzle interfaces and better communication formats. We are still completely Neanderthal in those areas. Which is absoluterly amazing for an activity associated with intelligence, science and creativity in our times.
also you can found useful information on : https://www.chess.com/blog/Aquajewel
First add a 
, then mate in 1. (Changed the position)
Yay, solved the first one lol
First add a , then mate in 1. (Changed the position)
wNh8 Rxg1#
First add a , then mate in 1. (Changed the position)
wNh8 Rxg1#
Correct. The knight cannot escape the promotion square on h8, so it has to be there. I tried to create a parity problem with the knight but it’s very difficult.
#2 is rxd5