Loser Academy

When is the next puzzle?

Nice explanations from both of you . So I understand most of the puzzle community like to treat (normal) puzzles as compositions (which are regulated) since there can otherwise be problematic ambiguities, and that there are yet no clear rules to be defined for (normal) puzzles.

Also, nice take on the 'Chess960' argument, but as you noted there are still ambiguities about Chess960 positions, which can be problematic.

Thank you for your answers.

As soon as one is ready .

That is more or less correct, though there is such thing as a "normal" puzzle. It is just a term from our natural language which aligns with a mental archetype. Anyone using it in a particular way in a particular context ought to clarify which rules apply to that situation. It's not optional simply because the side creating the puzzle challenge must always make sure that the solving side can solve it on the basis of the same rules. Ambiguity or frailties in rules are no excuse to discard them since without rules puzzles do not exist at all. Fortunately not all puzzles activate the areas of ambiguity or unclarity and where you crash into them you can always provide your own choices per instance. Note that there is a fundamental (mathematical) distinction between "system rules" and "choice rules". That you can chose about "castling right" or "chess960 setups" does not imply you can chose about "position legality". The latter is entered rock solid in the FIDE laws. Taking liberties with this rule is the same as taking liberties with for instance the diagonal geometry of the bishop moves. Have it move like a rook and you are outside the standard chess environment. Btw, there is an important domain in chess composition outside standard chess and we call it "fairy". Obviously you can only enter it by providing all the different fairy rules first!

What commonly happens - as shown by the examples you gave - is that people start believing that the puzzle rules somehow come from computer interfaces and engines. Like "chess.com" accepts 9 pawns/promoted pieces, so it's probably all right. Or "chess.com" puzzles always accept just one solution move, so puzzles should always have just one solution (move). These are fictions come alive by poor puzzle implementations, even of FIDE laws. Nothing in chess.com's puzzle interface sets a standard for anything. Unfortunately we need to accept them for practical reasons which explains why many good chess compositions can never be presented here. The interface is simply incapable of supporting them. I always say we are still living in the ice age of puzzle interfaces (until we get SolveGPT one day ) and it is up to us to stick to the ethical and just use of the puzzle environment.

Another note. Chess.com is completely geared up for games and puzzles are a side act. Many here believe that a chess puzzle is just an interesting fraction of a game. And so it is with chess.com's own puzzles most if not all are derived from actual games. There are other websites aimed at compositions and capable of providing puzzle analysis but I know none with a decent competitive solving interface. I know one for the game of "Go" but it need not deal with the same variety of puzzles which exists in chess.

Ah, glad to hear you don't like it! I already thought you did not really agree with what we wrote but only tolerated it as an alternative reality. But indeed, what we wrote are not just our opinions and did not aim to respect yours. Once you lay the groundwork for any discipline, you take away some of the liberties which were there before you founded it. It becomes a subject of knowledge and logic, not merely of personal taste and opinion. As you know, chess is 50% science and 50% art, but the art only pays off when the science is respected. Any idea how many great paintings were lost in time because the chemical preparation of the paint wasn't right?

I don't understand this comment. I understand and respect the concept of making legal positions and moves, and the interest to apply it for the chess puzzles that are traditional compositions (Black to play and mate in x moves, White to play and draw, White to play and force Black to check him, etc.). I do my best to publish puzzles with a unique solution, as you noted, and will put more effort towards making legal positions in my traditional-composition-like puzzles.

I truly value your answers and your comments. Most of my puzzles are traditional-composition-like, they are by default, but the definition of a puzzle is really opened.

I'm not engaging in any discipline, I'm here to do puzzles (most of which are traditional-composition-like) and have fun as an hobby. So of course I am sincerely interested about traditional-composition-like puzzles and want to know how the community feels about it in order to build said traditional-composition-like puzzles, since people like you honestly care about it.

You sound offended and I don't really understand why. If you have no interest in my very few puzzles that do not fall in the traditional-composition-like category, fell free not to care about them.

I do hope you have fun with chess above all.

You are a cool person, and you helped me improve my traditional-composition-like puzzles. You spend your time and energy trying puzzles on this forum to test their flaws and truly want people to improve in traditional-composition-like puzzles, and that's very nice of you.

Hi, perhaps there is a misunderstanding since you downvoted my post. I read almost all puzzle posts but only comment on those where I have something to say (sometimes just: nice). In the world of composition we know many traditional types like helpmate, selfmate and reflex mate which are all played with the same standard chess rules. The ones in the Loser Academy thread are also played with standard chess rules and therefore no different with respect to rule evaluations. The only thing different between the most traditional "mate in n" (direct mates) and the others are the stipulations (goals). At one time in the past we used to name these types heterodox as opposed to orthodox - same rules, different goals. The real fairy types (like Circe - captured pieces resurrect on their home squares) require modifications of the rules which cancels the choice conventions for the standard chess environment. In this picture the "Loser academy" features in the heterodox department. It is similar to the game of "Losing chess" which however permits "capturing the king". The latter places it in the fairy domain.

When types really feature different chess rules (beyond setting up a diagram or a game start position) they are free from "traditional" restrictions. However most composers avoid positions which are clearly unchesslike like a diagram with 16 queens, unless the rules obviously demand it. Since compositions are required to be economical anyway that is not much of a limitation. How often do you really need 16 queens to express an idea?

Of course 16 queens is overkill.

Good to learn terminology («heterodox» vs «traditional», «stipulations»). As to fairy chess, I am not much familiar with it. I did try for curiosity some like Duck Chess and CrazyHouse variants offered in Chess.com, but I only adopted FFA 4vs4 and Chaturaji (the version on this platform where the «boat» plays like a rook) out of these. There are countless variants, and the playerbase of these variants are very niché.

And the ones playing with fairy pieces like the grasshoper are even more niche.

In my opinion, unless you have large base (or unless you are in a chess club) which understands the fairy type you are going for in a puzzle, there is little interest or point in making fairy chess composition since it is outside the realm of most players. On this platform, the very big majority of users play normal chess and/or 960chess (with different time formats) only.

PS: I didn't downvote your post unless I misclicked since I never meant to. It may also have been from another user, but I don't get why they would downvote you. So it was just a misunderstanding.

New puzzle!

(Puzzle #6):

Nice