21284 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
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."
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.
Looks like I will have to go a tad more slowly.
Let's start with: "give" and "calculate" don't mean the same thing. :)
So you are saying that we are supposed to calculate ALL the possible moves to "solve" a puzzle ?
Example : mate in one.
You did not "solve" it if you didn't see the five mating moves, and the fact that 1.Qb3 draws, according to your definition.
i guess you have to read and understand thoroughly what i have posted.. what i meant "calculate all the colateral variations".. these are the variations you have to calculate after you have given the key move..in order to prove that you have comppletely solved a puzzle, you have to analyze all variations that would arise depending on black's reply..
Which one, precisely, is not given in #19 ?
- not #19, but your comment in #11 which suggests 1.Kb2??? which according to you can give mate more reliable..the key move you suggested is wrong, thus follows the variations as well.
Her plan is to post a comment every one or two days so her topic comes in the "Most Recent Posts" section at different times of the day, hoping that she gets more viewers. Ignore it.
- well, honestly i dont have such plans in mind..i posted this puzzle to challenge evryone who viewed it if they can solve it,..and that is all. i dont consider it as an honor that this may be included every week as "most recent posts", i would rather prefer to achieve a higher rating by playing chess in this site to prove something- and that I call honor.
If I follow your reasoning :
1-None gave the full lines in the same post, except Irontiger.
2-Irontiger got the puzzle wrong at first.
3-Thus, the puzzle is not solved.
Do you see a problem ? No ?
1-None has managed to create a fire, except Gronk the cavesman who put together the idea of silex from Hurk the stone carver and the idea of hitting from Durk the hunter.
2-Gronk the cavesman failed when he first tried clay instead of silex.
3-Thus, fire has not being invented yet.
Now I understand Sharrocks (#32) was true, and I will follow is advice. It was a pretty puzzle, but your trolling ruins it all.
there were more variations in it..tnx for liking it.
When exactly do you play a certain opening?
by Flops00 a few minutes ago
2/13/2016 - Filipp S. Bondarenko, Feenschach 1960
by ChessQueen51 3 minutes ago
Funny joke: Why is a bishop so valuable?
by DarkGrisen 5 minutes ago
What's wrong with people on chess.com?
by solskytz 5 minutes ago
Ask an IM anything for chess
by PositionalChessMC 15 minutes ago
Good middlegame and pawn structure
by Sqod 19 minutes ago
tactics bumping me out, usually in middle of prblem
by Sqod 21 minutes ago
Very interesting game
by HueyWilliams 24 minutes ago
can white win?
by HueyWilliams 34 minutes ago
Wrong insufficient material rule
by SonOfThunder2 37 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!