Post your puzzles!
Sort:
Re post #3: Very nice #7. Bonus points for the composer who can turn it into "6 ----- in a row"! Looks like 5 is the math maximum for this particular task!
@drdos7 Wonderful puzzle!
@drdos7 That puzzle was actually sppectacular! Well done!
I just got my puzzle rating above 2000 and now I'm afraid to do another for fear of dropping. Ugh
Jun 17, 2023
0
#9
Here is a pretty nice mate in 19 by Harold Lommer in 1975 that uses a similar staircase maneuver to the puzzle in post #2:
This is THE most cursed puzzle I've ever made!
Nice! This mate in 19 is a good use of king staircase.
drdos7 wrote:
Here is a pretty nice mate in 19 by Harold Lommer in 1975 that uses a similar staircase maneuver to the puzzle in post #2:
It surprises me that Lommer - a very distinguished composer - would leave in the dual 17. Re6+/Rb3+ which appears easy to fix. I have no clue other than that Lommer might have disliked adding non-participating pawns to the clean piece setup.
agree
Jun 17, 2023
0
#15
Arisktotle wrote:
drdos7 wrote:
Here is a pretty nice mate in 19 by Harold Lommer in 1975 that uses a similar staircase maneuver to the puzzle in post #2:
It surprises me that Lommer - a very distinguished composer - would leave in the dual 17. Re6+/Rb3+ which appears easy to fix. I have no clue other than that Lommer might have disliked adding non-participating pawns to the clean piece setup.
Indeed, I probably should have included the minor dual in the PGN.
It surprises me that Lommer - a very distinguished composer - would leave in the dual 17. Re6+/Rb3+ which appears easy to fix. I have no clue other than that Lommer might have disliked adding non-participating pawns to the clean piece setup.
You are right.
Jun 17, 2023
0
#18
Here is a mate in 13 from 1938 by Mihail Croitor that I believe Lommer's 1975 mate in 19 is based off of, and this one has no duals.
drdos7 wrote:
Here is a mate in 13 from 1938 by Mihail Croitor that I believe Lommer's 1975 mate in 19 is based off of, and this one has no duals.
Very likely! That also kind of explains why he didn't want extra dual removing material on the board distracting from the analogy. He merely wanted to send us the message: "there is another mate in there!"
Hello!