# matein 3 - hard

Doesn't 1.Kb2+ mate in three in a more reliable way ?

1...Kb4 Qc3#

1...Kxd4 2.Nd6 (whatever) 3.Qc3#

EDIT : Ok, 1.Qf4 works. Due to 1.Qf4 Kb4 2.Qd2+ Kc5 3.Qc3# !

what do you mean nice catch??? black can,t be mated in 3 moves with Kb2..black would simply rply with 1....Kxd4

what do you mean nice catch??? black can,t be mated in 3 moves with Kb2..black would simply rply with 1....Kxd4

Would you mind reading #11 again ? Agreed, I typoed 1...Kxe4 instead of ...Kxd4, but it wasn't hard to understand.

im concerned with the erroneous variation you have posted in #11, thus:

Doesn't 1.Kb2+ mate in three in a more reliable way ?

1...Kb4 Qc3#

1...Kxd4 2.Nd6 (whatever) 3.Qc3#

--you are very confident that you have used the word "whatever" the above variation, pressuming that black will be mated whatever his 2nd move..well, sadly you missed 2....... Kd3 by black

where is mate then, irontiger???

im concerned with the erroneous variation you have posted in #11, thus:

Doesn't 1.Kb2+ mate in three in a more reliable way ?

1...Kb4 Qc3#

1...Kxd4 2.Nd6 (whatever) 3.Qc3#

--you are very confident that you have used the word "whatever" the above variation, pressuming that black will be mated whatever his 2nd move..well, sadly you missed 2....... Kd3 by black

where is mate then, irontiger???

True. I thought for some reason that Black's king could not move.

I failed.

Then 1.Qf4 it is, with the variants already given by previous posters :

1...Kb4 2.Qc2+ Kc5 3.Qc3#

1...exf4 2.Kc3 and 3.b4#

1...exd4 2.Qd6+ Kb5 3.Qb6#

1...e4 2.Kc3 and 3.Qd6#.

there were already 341 who viewed this puzzle and yet no one was able to succeed solving it,,lol

I gave all the variations (not all due to me) in #19, so I guess we can claim to have solved it, can't we ?

i don't think so...we understand the matter differently..for me, as a chessplayer, you can only say that you have solve it if you were able to see the key move and presicely calculated all collateral variations arising from it.

and i guess you did not able to solve it coz you suggested 1.Kb2?

i don't think so...we understand the matter differently..for me, as a chessplayer, you can only say that you have solve it if you were able to see the key move and presicely calculated all collateral variations arising from it.

and i guess you did not able to solve it coz you suggested 1.Kb2?

What a strangely rigid definition of 'solve' - I guess once you make a mistake it is impossible to solve it, even when you give the correct key and all variations. :)

.....and i guess bigdoggproblem had problem understanding what i posted.

what i said:

"for me, as a chessplayer, you can only say that you have solve it if you were able to see the key move and presicely calculated all collateral variations arising from it."

bigdoggproblem said:

I guess once you make a mistake it is impossible to solve it, even when you give the correct key and all variations. :)

I'm sad becoz he did not understand the line "precisely calculated all collateral variations".. How can you make a mistake if you are precise in your calculations huh???!!!!

I put it into an engine. Analysis says "#-3 (Mate in 3)"All the suggested variations to get out of it fail.

.....and i guess bigdoggproblem had problem understanding what i posted.

what i said:

"for me, as a chessplayer, you can only say that you have solve it if you were able to see the key move and presicely calculated all collateral variations arising from it."

bigdoggproblem said:

I guess once you make a mistake it is impossible to solve it, even when you give the correct key and all variations. :)

I'm sad becoz he did not understand the line "precisely calculated all collateral variations".. How can you make a mistake if you are precise in your calculations huh???!!!!

Looks like I will have to go a tad more slowly.

Let's start with: "give" and "calculate" don't mean the same thing. :)