Puzzles needed for tactics trainer

Page25 submissions

Thankyou JamieKowalski, for the 146th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=231031

(altered to allow extension without ambiguity)

Thankyou Snar, 147th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=402265

Thankyou LegoPirate for an entertaining 148th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=389649

Thankyou Metaknight251, 149th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=474799

and 150th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=85452

Thankyou Ponagemon100, 152nd puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=326285

Thankyou blaow, for a nice 153rd puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=232845  .  I’ve chosen the strongest moves for the computer. The next puzzle can’t be used as it is only one move.

ClavierCavalier, Houdini v Fischer…

StrategicPlay, unfortunately the puzzle is ambiguous as after 1…Bh8 either 2.Ra8+ +6 or 2.Bh6 +5. I couldn’t find an easy way to remove this ambiguity.

Spieler999, feel free to make the g2 alteration you suggest and post a new diagram, but  please check the lines with a computer according to the criteria in my first post.

Powerlevel_9001, unfortunately it becomes ambiguous before becoming conclusive after 6…Nc7 7.Qd8 (+3.13) or 7.Qxf7 (+1.51). Even without this ambiguity, this may be another example of a problem being too difficult for tactics trainer.

Please try to start your diagrams with the computer’s first move.

Thankyou PortlandPatzer. The problem becomes ambiguous with either Kg5-f6 or Kg5-g6 being winning. Starting the puzzle at this point gives the 154th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=374663  . It may be present in tactics trainer already but this shouldn’t matter unless it is at a similar rating.

What about mine?

Perhaps a variation where it is not mate? White would play Nc6+ as in your puzzle, then white would play Nf7 forking the king and rook.

1...e5(blunder) 2. Qxe5+ Nxe5 3. Rd8#

Winning a bishop.

iixxPROxxii wrote: Perhaps a variation where it is not mate? White would play Nc6+ as in your puzzle, then white would play Nf7 forking the king and rook.

nameno1had wrote: Why, what is wrong with a easily overlooked and less common smothered mate?

Nothing is wrong with an overlooked mate... But TT puzzles need to be 2+ moves long.

I'd love to see how many people genuinely get this puzzle on their first attempt... a sure hit in the tactics trainer 

Solved it. ~ 20 - 30 s.

Why, you have many that are one move. They throw me for a loop when looking for a mate and turns out it's just a hanging piece. An easily overlooked smothered mate, that many newbies and even intermediate players won't see, is a great choice if you ask me. I almost missed and I had the benefit of seeing the whole game unfold.

If it is a matter of you are being selective based upon need, then I have a suggestion for you. Especially after one puzzle I submitted that was butchered, cutting off a particularly more difficult section of it, I would rather you create threads for each catergory of puzzle you are looking for. I intentionally submitted it after a 3000ish rated TT user complained about not enough hard puzzles.

I don't see point in having people feel like their hard work was for naught, or not good enough, their intelligence was potentially insulted, or that a fond memory from one of their games that they wanted to share in a specific way for a specific reason, had it's identity taken from it.

A seperate thread for each catergory would be perhaps more to monitor in certain respects, but less messy to go right after what you are looking for. You could communicate in either a main thread, addressing needs for specific puzzles, or anounce that you aren't looking for any for a while of particular types.

pumpupthevolume - i think there is duplicate solution for your puzzle: mate in 3: 1. Bc6 Kc8 2. a8Q+ Kc7 3. Qb7#

Page27 submissions

cflux, I can’t obtain the puzzle starting position (FEN) from your diagram.

Thankyou Genghis_McCann, 1 black rook removed to prevent ambiguity. 155th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=259471

Thankyou homernh, for the 156th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=358253

 which starts later to prevent the ambiguity 1…Qb2 2.Bxg7 (+12) or 2.Rxf7 (+6)

Note there can be only 1 winning move at each step, for the puzzles in this thread.

Thankyou Player5-VERY_HARD, 157th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=463175

cflux, unfortunately the puzzle is ambiguous with several alternative moves leading to mate.

Thankyou bobes, 158th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=297481

Thankyou vmay1072, 159th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=270597

cflux, unfortunately the puzzle is ambiguous with many winning lines. However trying to fix the problem led to the 160th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=307195

nameno1had, I'm a little shocked and saddened by your response to :

'Thankyou nameno1had for the 140th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=422759 a nice mate. Rook on h8 removed to avoid ambiguity on the first move. '

Perhaps you don't realize I'm a volunteer who pays for his subscription, and only does this thread to help people feel good about creating their own puzzles. I can find puzzles far more quickly in the approver pool which has over 100,000 puzzles waiting for me to look at.

Single move puzzles are gradually being deleted from tactics trainer as has been previously explained on this thread. They make it difficult for tactics trainer to generate a correct time and rating for the puzzle, and chess.com current rules for puzzle approvers is not to approve any.

Alterations I make to puzzles are to make a puzzle as unambiguous, and as educational for the many thousands of people who will attempt the problem. Often moves have to be chosen otherwise the problem cannot continue eg.at the end of your puzzle there was a choice between allowing mate in 4 or mate in 3 but continuing with the best move for mate in 4 was not possible because there were competing winning lines. The mate in 3 line was chosen to at least allow the problem to continue one more move. Far from shortening your problem I made every effort to choose a line that made the problem appear longer on tactics trainer.

I'm also not perfect and will make wrong decisions at times, and have made adjustments to puzzles in the past after being questioned.

This thread will only continue as long as I enjoy doing it. Fortunately there are many who have appreciated my work, and you remain an exception.

FEN: 1r1r2k1/p5p1/4p2p/1b3p2/5P2/1Pb1NB2/P5PP/2RR3K b - - 0 1

(~drawing tactic for white):

1...Bd2 2.Rc5 Bxe3 3.Rxd8+ Rxd8 4.Rxb5

Computer analysis:

1...Bd2

(1...Bd2 Houdini 1.5a x64 -0.46 (depth 20)  2.Rc5 Bxe3 3.Rxd8+ Rxd8 4.Rxb5 Kf7 5.g3 g5 6.fxg5 hxg5 7.Re5 Bd4 8.Re1 e5 9.Rf1 Ke6 10.g4 f4 11.Kg2 Bb6 12.Re1 Rd2+ 13.Re2 Rxe2+ 14.Bxe2 e4 15.Bc4+ Ke5 16.Kf1)

(1...Bd2 -3.23 (depth 20)  2.Nf1 Bxc1 3.Rxc1 Rbc8 4.Re1 Bxf1 5.Rxf1 Rd2 6.a4 Rc3 7.h3 Rxb3 8.Rc1 Ra3 9.Rc8+ Kh7 10.Rc6 Rxa4 11.Rxe6 Rxf4 12.Ra6 Rd7 13.Bh5 Rf1+ 14.Kh2 g5 15.Kg3 Re7)

(1...Bd2 -3.30 (depth 19)  2.Nc4 Bxc1 3.Rxc1 Bxc4 4.bxc4 Rd2 5.h3 Rbb2 6.a4 Rbc2 7.Re1 Kf7 8.Rb1 Rb2 9.Re1 Rdc2 10.Re5 Rxc4 11.Ra5 Rc7 12.Kh2 g5 13.fxg5 hxg5 14.Ra6 Ke7 15.Kg3 e5)

(1...Bd2 -3.39 (depth 19)  2.Rxd2 Rxd2 3.Rc7 Be2 4.Bc6 Rxa2 5.h3 g5 6.fxg5 hxg5 7.Nc4 Bxc4 8.bxc4 Rb1+ 9.Kh2 a5 10.Ra7 Re1 11.c5 Re5 12.Bd7 Ree2 13.Kg3 Rxg2+ 14.Kf3 Rgf2+ 15.Ke3 f4+)

I guess that we have misjudged one another somewhat. It isn't that I don't appreciate what chess.com does,or what you do, especially to learn you are a volunteer.  I am taking this time to not only say thanks, but to let you have a glimpse into my mind, over what I said.

I knew that chess.com had to have standards for their puzzles. I realize you have to work through certain channels and within particular parameters to have these things work. That is common sense to me. I didn't realize exactly what they were. Once again, I am victim of not wanting to read the dialogue of nearly 30 pages of thread posts, to make sure I didn't miss anything. I don't have that kind of time. Please excuse my ignorance based upon that and the fact I want to mean well.

I wanted to let you know that it is more important to me to capture concepts, ideas, and especially uncommon situations, more than for me to have my name on a puzzle. That for me is irrelevant. I didn't invent it, doubt I discovered it and seriously doubt it would ever be my claim to fame, for getting one submitted with my name on it.

As for ambiguity in puzzles. My personal experience is that there is plenty of it in existing puzzles. I know people complain about it. It is understandable to a degree, but taking all of it out, is bad in IMHO. Do the games we play not offer any ? I think that making a bunch of puzzles that never challenge you as a game will is bad.

When I mean ambiguity, I don't meam asking you to create a puzzle giving me the option of a mate in 3 or 4 for full credit. You choosing 3 is fine, or seeing that I get the key concept in 1 or 2 moves if fine too. I mean, when there is a clear forced mate in 9 moves, but it is confusing to chose the right move in a few key spots, because you have to calculate a few moves, this sort of ambiguity is necessary. You already have some puzzles with less moves, like the one I submitted that you shortened, cutting off a crucially difficult move to see, that really helps to test the meddle of a player. Also, I think that making it clearly look like a mate instead of a place to win an exchange is bad for us. Games will often give us choices like this. If you make the puzzles too easy, it won't make us better. People will just complain for more puzzles and harder ones, perpetuating your delimma.

The one move puzzles are really only bad when you have been solving mate in 3+ and searching for mating nets that require 3 moves each for the last 5 puzzles and suddenly you have to quickly decide between a free bishop and whether that is just a distraction to test how well you'll study a position for a mate.

People fail at a puzzle that only takes 5 seconds for most users who have seen the puzzle multiple times. The real problem isn't the timer or the fact it is one move, it is the fact that in the given time, you don't have the benefit of knowing how to judge the position as you would have if you watched it unfold, as in a game. If you used a title, such as hanging piece. Then everything is suddenly relevant and spot on.

Another facet to the problem is people doing it multiple times. It is interesting how their rating will be better when they reset the trainer and start over, than if they have the same skill level and keep doing puzzles otherwise. If the rating system was corrected to not give anyone an advantage in starting over, or better yet penalize someone for not starting over, then the time it takes on average would go up for all of the puzzles also. The rating for them would stay higher instead of going down.

I realize some of this stuff isn't your responsibility, however, if these things aren't weighed as you continue to tweak the system. It isn't going to get any better, it will just be slightly different.

I let you know all of these things so you will realize I am a considerate person, who sees more than what may appear as selfishness would allow me and so that you will realize I really care, about the good of everyone involved.

I have to say I am not sure whether to be more shocked that you thought most people are only wanting their name next to a puzzle, regardless of how their idea was skewed, or how it contributes to a new problem in how the T.T. system works, perpetuates an old one or the fact that maybe you are right in that most of them do only want their name next to a puzzle and are oblivious to these things.

I hope you realize I am not ungrateful or angry. I just feel misjudged and as I said previously, perhaps some of my concerns, though they could have an impact on what you are directed to do, need to be directed to Chess.com.

Using the word 'butcher' is an emotive way to describe altering a problem to allow it to be used in tactics trainer. The diagram below has the start of your butchered problem with Houdini's computer evaluation which shows there are alternative winning moves at the start of the puzzle. If you have suggestions for improvement with either chess.com or tactics trainer please don't direct them at me or this thread, but instead send a message to a member of staff. I also didn't say that people only wanted their name by a puzzle.

Feel free to edit the start position to remove these, and other ambiguous lines using a computer, and re-submit the puzzle so a new one can be overwritten. 

Earlier I mentioned the idea of using tags to direct a persons attention to a specific idea. Teaching people to look for a specific type of tactic, doesn't violate the integrity of a puzzle, simply because there could be an alternate soultion. If someone found it, I simply tell them that they must be really good at. There is another way to appease them I will get to in a minute.

If a queen sacrifice is mentioned, it would certainly be a step in the right direction. I know that when I check this with the only engine I have available to set up a position, it comes back as a good forced mate in 9, with no alternates in 9. I can try to come up with another to check it and see, but you are sure Houdini (is it 2.0 or 1.5 comes up with the two alternate lines)... If the others are in more moves, it should be irrelevant.

I wanted to add that I personally think it is a bit silly to omit certain positions from training examples, due to the fact they have mulitple solutions. It would be bad if you have highly trained chess players who can only recognize a mate, as long it is the only available solution. If there are 3 solutions, it would be rather ridiculous to not have a training exercise illustrating it.

Using tags, you could make one puzzle into three and really educate someone. It might seem confusing, but I think in the end, players trained that way would be the better for it. If all tactics puzzles are done in the unambiguous manner, no wonder some people are so bad at tactics.

BTW, I won't waste my time arguing impressions, semantics and emotions or the lack there of, over my choice to have more than a 3 word vocabulary.

nameno, I found a temporary way to allow your first move but am happy to edit the puzzle again if you find a way you prefer.

140th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=422759

161st puzzle sideline http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=272599

162nd puzzle sideline http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=300169

163rd puzzle sideline http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=339297

Can you verify if you use Houdini 2.0 or 1.5...I have a version of 1.5, but I am not sure if I can use it in the described capacity? Do you have the moves documented in a pgn form of the alternates that you could copy and paste here, that I may look into them?