I've been combing through the lichess pawn endgame puzzles over the last couple of weeks and I've occassionally run into a few bad puzzles:

#GfCey

#fzqXY

Both of these puzzles have the same flaw, and I recieved them back-to-back! Both puzzles require the solver to notice that an otherwise correct candidate move is incorrect due to 3 move repitition. The players who played the games which these puzzles were extracted from are 500 rating points below the rating of the puzzles and they decided to repeat moves. Anyone who would be expected to find the winning move (i.e. meeting the puzzle rating requirement) would not have repeated moves twice already. I'm aware you could argue its an interesting way to ask for alternative ways to win, however I'll get on to that now:

The first puzzle is most offensive in that there are only 2 candidate moves, both of which would be winning under normal circumstances. The second move of the puzzle is extremely easy to find by process of elimination. Anyone who notices the 3 move repitition would be able to "solve" the "puzzle".

The second puzzle is again 2 different move orders (that both work) for the same idea.

lichess.org/study/dq0kwyrE

This is just a study I wrote about another position (the one in chapter 1) that keeps occurring as an incorrect solution. It's a tricky win and the correct solutions to those puzzles are much simpler to win than it would be to win the position in the study. In this case I understand that a winning move can be incorrect due to the comparative difficulty and I think it's fine that puzzles like this exist.

#GfCey

#fzqXY

Both of these puzzles have the same flaw, and I recieved them back-to-back! Both puzzles require the solver to notice that an otherwise correct candidate move is incorrect due to 3 move repitition. The players who played the games which these puzzles were extracted from are 500 rating points below the rating of the puzzles and they decided to repeat moves. Anyone who would be expected to find the winning move (i.e. meeting the puzzle rating requirement) would not have repeated moves twice already. I'm aware you could argue its an interesting way to ask for alternative ways to win, however I'll get on to that now:

The first puzzle is most offensive in that there are only 2 candidate moves, both of which would be winning under normal circumstances. The second move of the puzzle is extremely easy to find by process of elimination. Anyone who notices the 3 move repitition would be able to "solve" the "puzzle".

The second puzzle is again 2 different move orders (that both work) for the same idea.

lichess.org/study/dq0kwyrE

This is just a study I wrote about another position (the one in chapter 1) that keeps occurring as an incorrect solution. It's a tricky win and the correct solutions to those puzzles are much simpler to win than it would be to win the position in the study. In this case I understand that a winning move can be incorrect due to the comparative difficulty and I think it's fine that puzzles like this exist.