I have played many puzzles and lost as many as I've passed, however I recently played a puzzle I don't quite agree with, which you can try below if you want (before I spoil the wrong answer in a second here)
lichess.org/training/3bXI8
--
basically my issue with the puzzle is multiple moves are winning, and this isn't due to immediate material or checkmating ideas but rather long positional lines. Between the two lines, the computer evaluates the correct one as -6 and another as -1.
Personally, during the puzzle I decided that I liked very uncomfortable white position after the move
29... Rd1+??
leading to a forced
30. Kb2 Qe5+ 31. Ka3
with a very exposed white king, endangered e and f pawns, and checkmating threats looming
Most the time when people play a wrong move they forgot to account for some hidden defense, however under analysis not only does the computer confirm black is still better after Rd1, but going down some moves stockfish manages to even win the position against itself.
I understand that puzzles go in saying to find the best move, and I know that fundamentally the correct move is superior to my own, however I still believe having multiple winning lines goes against the point of a puzzle. Getting a drawn or losing position is one thing, as these effect the long term outcome of the game. However, and this is my opinion, getting a winning position vs a more winning position should not be the point of a puzzle. In the same way missing a complicated mate in 4 is not bad when you instead execute a simple ladder mate in 5, being -1 vs -6 ultimately doesn't affect the end state of a perfect chess game.
It's possible I'm missing something here and I would be happy to hear if you disagree, but with all said and done I don't think this is a very good puzzle overall, even if technically one move is 'better' than all others.
lichess.org/training/3bXI8
--
basically my issue with the puzzle is multiple moves are winning, and this isn't due to immediate material or checkmating ideas but rather long positional lines. Between the two lines, the computer evaluates the correct one as -6 and another as -1.
Personally, during the puzzle I decided that I liked very uncomfortable white position after the move
29... Rd1+??
leading to a forced
30. Kb2 Qe5+ 31. Ka3
with a very exposed white king, endangered e and f pawns, and checkmating threats looming
Most the time when people play a wrong move they forgot to account for some hidden defense, however under analysis not only does the computer confirm black is still better after Rd1, but going down some moves stockfish manages to even win the position against itself.
I understand that puzzles go in saying to find the best move, and I know that fundamentally the correct move is superior to my own, however I still believe having multiple winning lines goes against the point of a puzzle. Getting a drawn or losing position is one thing, as these effect the long term outcome of the game. However, and this is my opinion, getting a winning position vs a more winning position should not be the point of a puzzle. In the same way missing a complicated mate in 4 is not bad when you instead execute a simple ladder mate in 5, being -1 vs -6 ultimately doesn't affect the end state of a perfect chess game.
It's possible I'm missing something here and I would be happy to hear if you disagree, but with all said and done I don't think this is a very good puzzle overall, even if technically one move is 'better' than all others.
