If your “pattern of play” leads you to routinely opt to severely weaken your advantage, then I think it is your play that needs a rethink, and not the puzzles. You keep insisting that because you habitually opt not to make the best move, the puzzles should reinforce this. It is the opposite.
What you personally feel you are capable of winning is not measurable or useful in judging the puzzles. The move that leads to the best engine analysis score is an “objective” thing that actually has some practical application.
I still have to learn a lot from tactics and I can go wrong wery easy. I think the engine is very good and the tactics quizzes are also very good to improve my skills. I have nothing to say against it.
In order for me to understand the evaluation system:
- If you find two mate solutions: one in 3 moves and another one in 4 moves, if I try the later one I fail the quiz because the first one only needs 3 moves?
- Two final positions for a quiz taking the same two pieces on the same square fron the opponent: in the first one you take it first with the bishop ant then with the knight (your bishop is gone), in the second one you take first with the knight and then with the bishop (your knight is gone). Is there a difference from the evaluation point of view of the engine?
Thank you in advance
@jmss0906 1) Theoretically yes. Although you wont see these puzzles very often 2) Bishops and Knights are different. Usually the bishop is more valuable than a knight, but it heavily depends on the position.
Thank you for the quick answer
1) You are right, these puzzles don't occur very often, but I have found some of them and failed the quiz. This was the reason of the question
2) I have understood it. It is clear for me that the engine evaluation is better than mine. I will be more careful in the future
Thank you very much
I have read but not carefully (depth of 1 or is it 0 when you stay in thread), but what about problem selection?
is it automatic, or manual (or both, automatic candidates then curing)?
Can't the selection criteria (manual or auto), take into account density of good lines and choose the most isolated one.
i have a geometric intuition (more than lexical) so naturally i slip space minded concepts here and there, it has limits but not useless:
a good puzzle would have been chosen because the winning move has high 2nd derivative in a putative gain surface (or loss), very peaked (need to consider multi lines, which i assume engines do, in not too greedy a fashion, the dilemma). Translate into your intuition support.... i may have flown off the handle here...(may even have screwed the idiomatic expression).
Here is the first puzzle I found on Lichess where alternative lines are possible.
If you play Bh1 or Be4 you are allowed to try again until you find Bf1 which leads to a mate in 4 moves.
The other 2 moves lead to mate in 5 or 6 moves.
this is a good one
i'll keep looking once i find one
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.