Only the last one is correct 
The first one has a dual (Nd7) while the second one isn't legal (I think) and even if it was, there would be no way to prove the last move was e7-e5.
Hard Mate in 2, Harder Mate in 1, Hardest Mate in 4!
Sort:
My bad. I forgot to mention the last one isn't legal either
I don't see any dual Nd7.What do you mean exactly? And for puzzle 2 that was the point. You won't know the last move but it is usually imbedded in the FEN which also shows possible en-passant targets even though there is no pawn to carry it out so the position is very much legal.
FENs don't count in solving puzzles. Consulting FENs is as illegal as playing the hints or using an engine. Problemists have special instructions to handle "invisible" information. If you don't use these methods but still want to relay the e.p. right, then you simply write it as a caption with the puzzle. Btw, illegal positions have no past and therefore no base for e.p. or castling right.
For puzzles two and three, explain to me how the pawn got to e2. As @Arisktotle said, the FEN doesn't count in solving puzzles.
Mar 25, 2021
0
#7
Graywing13 wrote:
For puzzles two and three, explain to me how the pawn got to e2. As @Arisktotle said, the FEN doesn't count in solving puzzles.
oops accidentally added a pawn there sry
ChessDude009 wrote:
Graywing13 wrote:
For puzzles two and three, explain to me how the pawn got to e2. As @Arisktotle said, the FEN doesn't count in solving puzzles.
oops accidentally added a pawn there sry
I see. However, it is still illegal because of white has three pairs of doubled pawns, indicating three captures. However, black has all his pieces, and even without the pawn on e2, it is impossible to reach the position.
Graywing13 wrote:
ChessDude009 wrote:
Graywing13 wrote:
For puzzles two and three, explain to me how the pawn got to e2. As @Arisktotle said, the FEN doesn't count in solving puzzles.
oops accidentally added a pawn there sry
I see. However, it is still illegal because of white has three pairs of doubled pawns, indicating three captures. However, black has all his pieces, and even without the pawn on e2, it is impossible to reach the position.
Ok I could agree on that point
Arisktotle wrote:
FENs don't count in solving puzzles. Consulting FENs is as illegal as playing the hints or using an engine. Problemists have special instructions to handle "invisible" information. If you don't use these methods but still want to relay the e.p. right, then you simply write it as a caption with the puzzle. Btw, illegal positions have no past and therefore no base for e.p. or castling right.
I don't mean consulting the FEN, I mean that the FEN of the possible secretly contains that en-passant possibility and that's the point of the puzzle
I meant that the point of a puzzle shouldn't depend on a secret source of information. A puzzle should be solvable for someone following the rules for puzzle solving in chess. Standard rules are that e.p. is not allowed unless provable and FENs don't count and positions must be legal and you need not "try" moves. If you use different rules you should specify them.
Generally, all puzzles which require knowing that they are solvable in order to discover the rules to solve them are based on inverted logic. They are "joke" puzzles.
Example: I sometimes make real puzzles where the FEN allows you to castle which would solve the puzzle. Still the castling moves are flagged "wrong" because you can prove that castling is illegal. That proof overrides what the FEN says because the FEN doesn't count for anything.
Mar 26, 2021
0
#12
No.2 is an oft-quoted but rubbish problem, devised by someone who doesn't know the basic rules of chess compositions. See my blog, Chess problem conventions re castling and capturing en passant.
Mar 27, 2021
0
#13
For puzzles two and three, explain to me how the pawn got to e2. As @Arisktotle said, the FEN doesn't count in solving puzzles.
oops accidentally added a pawn there sry
I see. However, it is still illegal because of white has three pairs of doubled pawns, indicating three captures. However, black has all his pieces, and even without the pawn on e2, it is impossible to reach the position.
Arisktotle wrote:
I meant that the point of a puzzle shouldn't depend on a secret source of information. A puzzle should be solvable for someone following the rules for puzzle solving in chess. Standard rules are that e.p. is not allowed unless provable and FENs don't count and positions must be legal and you need not "try" moves. If you use different rules you should specify them.
Generally, all puzzles which require knowing that they are solvable in order to discover the rules to solve them are based on inverted logic. They are "joke" puzzles.
Example: I sometimes make real puzzles where the FEN allows you to castle which would solve the puzzle. Still the castling moves are flagged "wrong" because you can prove that castling is illegal. That proof overrides what the FEN says because the FEN doesn't count for anything.
You are right but I was trying to say that the FEN was put that way to make the puzzle a joke cause someone can't just know if en-passant is valid without seeing the last move.
Rfxf7+ Kh8 Qf6+ Bg7 Qxg7# (for the second one) just an alternative
Apr 15, 2021
0
#19
icyboyyy wrote:
AunTheKnight wrote:
In the first one, how is that mate?
basically the board is backwards. black's pieces are where white starts, and white's pieces are where black starts
The board has become backwards from the starting position. Blacks pawns moves to the other side of the board, and because the position is legal, blacks pawns must have come from the other side.
Hope you liked these fun problems!