Spoiler:This solution has 26 moves...
Here is a hard chess puzzle for those who say that daily problems are too easy
Sort:
thts just absurd its unnecessary
It's absurd and therefore brilliant! 
It's debatable though if the queen can't be a pawn or a rook!
Still it's a 60 years old puzzle... Aristotle's fan!
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
Still it's a 60 years old puzzle... Aristotle's fan!
That explains it. In those days there were no computer programs to test the studies. Placing a queen on b2 is the safest way to assure a unique solution to white's victory!
Arisktotle a écrit :
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
Still it's a 60 years old puzzle... Aristotle's fan!
That explains it. In those days there were no computer programs to test the studies. Placing a queen on b2 is the safest way to assure a unique solution to white's victory!
According to my old endgame studies book (Domination in 2, 545 endgame studies by Ghenrikh Kasparyan), "the knight moves are exquisite"...
And if you want to know which endgame study it is, it's the 2545th !...
Took me a while
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
According to my old endgame studies book (Domination in 2, 545 endgame studies by Ghenrikh Kasparyan), "the knight moves are exquisite"...
He is a famous study composer. Not surprising he produced this beauty.
Arisktotle a écrit :
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
According to my old endgame studies book (Domination in 2, 545 endgame studies by Ghenrikh Kasparyan), "the knight moves are exquisite"...
He is a famous study composer. Not surprising he produced this beauty.
You got confused: the book was written by Ghenrikh Kasparyan, the study was actually composed by Iosef Vladimirovich Chuiko ...
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
You got confused: the book was written by Ghenrikh Kasparyan, the study was actually composed by Iosef Vladimirovich Chuiko ...
That's not confusion, just a natural thought. Many composers write books with mainly their own work - though 2545 is quite a lot Btw, forced king moves in a cage are not typically "Domination". Wonder why it is in there.
Hey chess enthusiasts, stumbled upon a 60-year-old chess puzzle on Chess.com that's a real brain teaser. It's fascinating to see how chess problems have evolved over the years, especially before the era of computer analysis. What are your thoughts on traditional vs. modern chess puzzles?
i do not speak english
speed_cuber456465464 a écrit :
i do not speak english
There are translators nowadays ...
Arisktotle написал:
Spr_chess_intermediate wrote:
You got confused: the book was written by Ghenrikh Kasparyan, the study was actually composed by Iosef Vladimirovich Chuiko ...
That's not confusion, just a natural thought. Many composers write books with mainly their own work - though 2545 is quite a lot Btw, forced king moves in a cage are not typically "Domination". Wonder why it is in there.
Absolutely, your point about composers writing books predominantly featuring their own work is well-taken. The sheer volume of 2545 pieces is indeed impressive and a bit overwhelming! Regarding the classification of forced king moves in a cage as 'Domination,' it's an interesting observation. The categorization in chess problems can sometimes be a bit subjective or unconventional. Perhaps the composer had a unique perspective or interpretation for including it under 'Domination.' For a deeper analysis or if you're looking to explore this topic further in an academic or structured format, services like writemyessays can be invaluable. They offer assistance in organizing and articulating complex ideas, which could be quite useful in dissecting and understanding such nuanced aspects of chess compositions.
bizonbiz wrote:
Hey chess enthusiasts, stumbled upon a 60-year-old chess puzzle on Chess.com that's a real brain teaser. It's fascinating to see how chess problems have evolved over the years, especially before the era of computer analysis. What are your thoughts on traditional vs. modern chess puzzles?
Actually the puzzle is not that hard to solve. Much more important is that it is of beautiful design. Composers since the latter part of the 19th century were as good as those today - only without the computer, and especially the endgame tablebase. That makes a big difference. That's why today's compositions are almost flawless (all computer-tested) and often have complicated lines approved by tablebase or common engines. Which leaves more time to the composers to develop and expand on more complicated themes. Many modern endgame studies have some variations where you'd trust the engines rather than doing all the analysis yourself. Quite often these lines are unthematic and therefore ignored by the community but nevertheless essential for soundness. For instance I made a study with a number of variations leading to different K+2N vs K+3P positions. I kept it in a drawer for 10 years until the 7-piece tablebase would tell me the outcome.
I'm told that modern studies more often are multi-phased - showing similar ideas in mainline, variations and tries - but I do not actually have a good overview. I'm not that active in the study community.
Arisktotle a écrit :
bizonbiz wrote:
Hey chess enthusiasts, stumbled upon a 60-year-old chess puzzle on Chess.com that's a real brain teaser. It's fascinating to see how chess problems have evolved over the years, especially before the era of computer analysis. What are your thoughts on traditional vs. modern chess puzzles?
Actually the puzzle is not that hard to solve. Much more important is that it is of beautiful design. Composers since the latter part of the 19th century were as good as those today - only without the computer, and especially the endgame tablebase. That makes a big difference. That's why today's compositions are almost flawless (all computer-tested) and often have complicated lines approved by tablebase or common engines. Which leaves more time to the composers to develop and expand on more complicated themes. Many modern endgame studies have some variations where you'd trust the engines rather than doing all the analysis yourself. Quite often these lines are unthematic and therefore ignored by the community but nevertheless essential for soundness. For instance I made a study with a number of variations leading to different K+2N vs K+3P positions. I kept it in a drawer for 10 years until the 7-piece tablebase would tell me the outcome.
I'm told that modern studies more often are multi-phased - showing similar ideas in mainline, variations and tries - but I do not actually have a good overview. I'm not that active in the study community.
Great, took me 30 seconds to read the whole text...
Arisktotle написал:
bizonbiz wrote:
Hey chess enthusiasts, stumbled upon a 60-year-old chess puzzle on Chess.com that's a real brain teaser. It's fascinating to see how chess problems have evolved over the years, especially before the era of computer analysis. What are your thoughts on traditional vs. modern chess puzzles?
Actually the puzzle is not that hard to solve. Much more important is that it is of beautiful design. Composers since the latter part of the 19th century were as good as those today - only without the computer, and especially the endgame tablebase. That makes a big difference. That's why today's compositions are almost flawless (all computer-tested) and often have complicated lines approved by tablebase or common engines. Which leaves more time to the composers to develop and expand on more complicated themes. Many modern endgame studies have some variations where you'd trust the engines rather than doing all the analysis yourself. Quite often these lines are unthematic and therefore ignored by the community but nevertheless essential for soundness. For instance I made a study with a number of variations leading to different K+2N vs K+3P positions. I kept it in a drawer for 10 years until the 7-piece tablebase would tell me the outcome.
I'm told that modern studies more often are multi-phased - showing similar ideas in mainline, variations and tries - but I do not actually have a good overview. I'm not that active in the study community.
Your perspective on the evolution of puzzle composition is quite insightful. It's fascinating how the integration of technology, particularly endgame tablebases and computer analysis, has refined the art of composing chess puzzles. The shift from relying solely on human ingenuity to incorporating computer-tested lines has indeed elevated the complexity and precision of modern compositions. Your personal experience with holding onto a study for a decade until technology could validate its soundness is a testament to this transformation. It's also interesting to note the trend towards multi-phased studies, which suggests a deeper exploration of themes across various scenarios. Even if you're not actively involved in the study community, your observations offer a valuable glimpse into the intricate world of chess puzzle composition.