Unbelievable to me

Random thought - if Qf7 is moved to d3, is it still cooked? I've yet to properly sift through any of the details, because I'm still trying to bust the 1st part (which is likely cooked, too). 

I like your intended solution to part 2. Putting something on d3 should make it safe against that particular cook since it is a white square.

Yes - and thanks!   However, I am suddenly very worried about the soundness of both parts, now. Back in 2011 (the only time I previously analyzed these), I definitely did NOT fully realize the kind of fire I was playing with. Despite how simple the positions are, there are potential cooks lurking around every corner, and I'd say the problem is currently at the brink of destruction... at best. 

@ cobra91 When you are looking to solve one of these where do you start? Seeing the things you must see positionally must make your game very strong.I don't think you have anything to be embarrassed about.Your puzzle has that first look (come on that position is not possible) that I would guess is the most desireable quality in this type of puzzle.I think it has to be worth fixing.

Always start by counting the missing pieces for each side, and then count up the "necessary" captures. "Necessary" captures usually involve the following:

• Doubled pawns, which always require at least one capture to achieve, and sometimes a lot more than one.
• Missing bishops/rooks that couldn't leave "home" due to being trapped by unmoved pawns.
• Missing pawns (that's usually where the analysis gets interesting, but I don't have time to go into the details of it right now).
• Required pawn promotions.

After performing the capture analysis, try to find a legal move that could have just been played, remembering that such a move CANNOT contradict the capture analysis.

There's also a list of about 15-20 specific ideas you need to be aware of, unless you can figure them out "on the fly". I don't have the time to explicitly mention those ideas, at the moment.

I wish that was true!   Unfortunately, real chess analysis is FAR more complicated than retrograde analysis. To put things in perspective, realize that there are some chess problems (such as the ones which are auto-composed by endgame tablebases) which totally outstrip the solving ability of [unassisted] humans. On the contrary, when it comes to retro-analytical problems, it's not a question of "whether" they'll be solved, but rather a question of "when".

I appreciate the encouragement.  Unfortunately, there are two reasons why I might never fix it: (1) I recently quit composing, and have no intention of ever going back to it. (2) Once a problem has been cooked, it's often difficult or impossible to fix it without a major overhaul.

The 1st part has not yet been spoiled, though. So you can still try to solve it, and maybe you'll find a "hole" in it somewhere. I was trying to bust it earlier today, and may try again very soon.

@ cobra91 thanks for the detailed reply.I think i will get that book by Raymund Smullyan that had the missing king in it,that Ariktotle talked about.I don't think you have to worry about me find any holes in your puzzle.                                          

I still haven't found a cook to part 1 of my puzzle from post #38, and haven't busted the updated version of part 2, either. I still suspect both parts are cooked, but will have to wait for someone else to figure out exactly how to break them (I'm probably too biased, despite how old the problem is).

So instead of continuing to waste time, I'll simply move on to the next composition I want to share. Among those from 2012, this was probably my favorite:

@cobra21: I don't see how the captures by White are on forced squares. e6xPb7 is possible because bKR can be captured prior to this having wandered through h4. If you add wBf1 then wPh4 must already be advanced, but then problem has non-standard material.

This went totally over my head. e6xPb7 ?? Such a move does not sound legal in any position, since no standard chess piece can go directly from e6 to b7 in a single bound. Plus, the pawn on b7 was obviously there throughout the full duration of the game, so no capture occurred on b7.

We may not be looking at the same position.

I can find no error in your 2012 problem. Nice setup to dominate the white army for one move forcing black to retract Ph6xBg5. This move eliminates the alternative retraction strategies seemingly present in the diagram!

Sigh: I have mild chess notation dyslexia! I often unconsciously reverse the board left-right / up-down / Black-White. I meant e6xPg7. I think it comes from learning descriptive before algebraic notation as an infant. Current position transiently forces immediate retraction h6xBg5, as Arisktotle points out. Very nice. I should really concentrate and not shoot from the hip. Using real world as test engine for random thoughts has its price. bB doesn't need to be on f4, right? Can't be disappeared altogether, but how about putting it on h4, with wPh4 shifted to h5? You have a real talent for these things and should make more.

Yes, I recall the tricky part was forcing that particular retraction while also allowing White's position to be freed by retracting g6-g5. Without a "thematic try", there's not much for the solver to look at. Of course, Ph6xQg5 and Ph6xRg5 are technically amounting to the same try as g6-g5, but I didn't think like this 5 years ago.

Yes, f6xPg7 makes a lot more sense. 

Have you seen some of the errors I've recently made, while doing exactly the same thing? If you look at some of the topics in the More Puzzles section (such as "A proof game"), you can find several pertinent examples.   It's worth it, though - there's really no better way to learn and improve.

Correct.   The reason it's there is quite amusing, in fact: I wanted White's last move to be unique, as well as Black's.

I'm sure there are actually a number of better places (than f4) for the DSB.

I didn't quit because I was terrible; I quit because I was decent, but not good enough to be relevant or accepted on an "as is" basis. There were always issues with my puzzles that needed to be ironed out by superior composers/problemists, and even when I did manage to come up with something cool, it would invariably be rendered null and void by some technical regulation or another. I honestly find [most of] the regulations to be not only unnecessary, but restrictive to the point of severely limiting the potential depth of content and perhaps even hindering real progress in the field.

The next problem I post (which I composed in 2013) will definitely be either despised or dismissed by the likes of purists. I apologize in advance. 

The soundness of the puzzle in post #38 (the "two-parter" from 2011) is still an open question, but I'm a bit more confident about it now than I was before, so I think I'll just go ahead and post what I consider to be my best problem from 2013. Despite breaking a cardinal rule of purists (you've been warned!), and even in spite of the almost unbelievably naive presentation (yeah, I may as well have been living under a rock at the time, as far as chess problem-related knowledge was concerned), the actual content holds up incredibly well, considering that nearly 4 years have gone by since I first came up with the idea.

It is a (prepare to laugh out loud) "game reconstruction" problem. You can choose not to believe this, but I really was totally unaware of the fact that there already existed an entire composition genre dedicated solely to the "ultimate" form of game reconstructions (in which, against all odds, only a bare diagram is needed to produce an entirely unique proof game). In any case:

The position below was reached after Black's 14th move, and neither side was in check after any prior move. Reconstruct the play which occurred during the game's first 14 full turns.

[Note: The following diagram includes a caption which was NOT part of my original 2013 composition. The stipulation featured within the caption is a more concise alternative to the one above, and was therefore added in very recently.]

There is a fairy type - I think it is called 'ohneschach' or something similar - where one is not allowed to give check except mate. There is nothing wrong with creating SPGs in an appropriate fairy chess form. This genre will become increasingly popular e.g. as the reflex-chess-SPG I proposed but ohneschach is also a promising type.

A generic adjustment in chess rules feels better than an unusual restriction in the stipulation.

Of course, an SPG still requires a unique move order by consensus but if such is the case, there is nothing to be criticized about this problem. What always remains true is that expectations are higher when composers take refuge into a fairy form with new creative options, but I suppose that won't bother you a lot in this context.

I'll look into solving it later.

I never could have predicted these would be so well-received! I suppose it's been partly due to chance (I was lucky the only cook found [so far] in the 2011 problem had such a quick and easy fix, and even luckier that the extra condition used in the 2013 problem just happens to resemble an existing [albeit obscure] fairy rule), and partly a result of how selective I'm being in my choice of problems to present (you'll just have to take my word for it - 90% of my archived "compositions" were essentially worthless; I guess if one throws enough darts... ).

It's too bad the thread has been all but abandoned, though. It was certainly NOT my intention to clear the place out with these more recent posts of mine, but that's apparently what's happened. 

It happens to all threads. Most people open it, and when it is a long thread, only look at the first post and react to that. After a while the pool of people interested in the first post is exhausted and reaction ceases. After some years somebody digs it up, there is a new pool of people interested in the first post and the cycle repeats. There are a few people who care to locate the last post but not that many. At least that is how I perceive it.

There are over 2000 fairy types defined (they were in a book; I once knew which one) and many can be combined. Quite a number relate to the basic building blocks that together constitute the game of chess like check, checkmate, captures, promotions, geometry. What you won't find is types with 'incidental rules' like "black must play his first bishop move with Bc8". Therefore, If you wish to stipulate something like "find a proof game where Bc8 was the first black bishop to move", then you won't find a fairy type to match it.

Your stuff is great cobra21. Please make new works. If you need encouragement, think at the least that you have independently reinvented proof games & checkless! Composers are "Independent spirits", which means you don't need to listen to anyone. Imagine you are making music.