After calculating in depth and taking a long time, I understood this puzzle lichess.org/training/Kk7Lg , I made all the moves correct in the main part of the puzzle, then the engine made the weirdest possible moves, I kept doing well, until I failed in the last one, I had to capture the knight with the rook, and not with the knight because if i capture with the knight a weird move made a draw, basically I lost 19 puzzle rating for failing the last move, which is most likely that 1/100 players make all those weird moves on a game, so MY SUGGESTION is that when you make a lot of correct moves and only the last move you fail, not remove the same points, which you would remove if they had failed all the moves, remove fewer points, or even add points (obviously not the same as if you had done everything right) The reason is a bit obvious, who do you think really deserves -19 rating points, the guy who tried nothing and did everything wrong, or the guy who did almost everything right, understood the problem, and took a long time , and it only failed because the engine made a weird move?
Well I don't think Rd1 is a weird move at all. It is the exact same principle of tactic of before but side reversed. If you take with the knight Rd1 creates a pin, which means that your rook is stuck defending the knight and there's no defense to prevent the pawn from queening, since your king is too far away. Unless you sacrifice something, which would lead to an equal position.
So first you need to find the advantage and then you need to keep it, a very instructional puzzle.
But let's come to your suggestion, which to be fair is not the first I see, there's a comment (via lichess discord) by a lichess admin and developer that is perfect for the occasion:
"In a game you won’t win if you fail the last move. Rating is just to get puzzles of your level, you don’t have to take it personally".
So first you need to find the advantage and then you need to keep it, a very instructional puzzle.
But let's come to your suggestion, which to be fair is not the first I see, there's a comment (via lichess discord) by a lichess admin and developer that is perfect for the occasion:
"In a game you won’t win if you fail the last move. Rating is just to get puzzles of your level, you don’t have to take it personally".
#2 +100
And also that's how chess works.
The difference between a GM and a ~2000 for instance is not that the 1st one makes all good moves and the latter all bad moves; quite the contrary, 80% or more of their moves could be the same.
Chess is not a "fair" game where a jury gives a punctuation in the end - how many times we all blundered away a winning position in one move? The fairness of chess is definitely not related to how many good or beautiful moves we do.
And also that's how chess works.
The difference between a GM and a ~2000 for instance is not that the 1st one makes all good moves and the latter all bad moves; quite the contrary, 80% or more of their moves could be the same.
Chess is not a "fair" game where a jury gives a punctuation in the end - how many times we all blundered away a winning position in one move? The fairness of chess is definitely not related to how many good or beautiful moves we do.
I believe that such a change would not raise everyone's puzzle rating.
People who frequently fail puzzles near the end would benefit at the expense of other people who fail less frequently.
None of us have any data on how we compare to other people on missing the last move of puzzles. None of us knows whether such a change would raise or lower our rating.
What if other people have the experience you had with puzzle Kk7Lg more frequently than you do, and you'd be harmed by the change?
Would it be fair to lower your rating just because you tend to analyze puzzles all the way to the end better than average?
People who frequently fail puzzles near the end would benefit at the expense of other people who fail less frequently.
None of us have any data on how we compare to other people on missing the last move of puzzles. None of us knows whether such a change would raise or lower our rating.
What if other people have the experience you had with puzzle Kk7Lg more frequently than you do, and you'd be harmed by the change?
Would it be fair to lower your rating just because you tend to analyze puzzles all the way to the end better than average?
I mean, you have to calculate it all !
I have the feeling thou, that in a lot of mating puzzles it is possible to win serious material (i.e having a technically win position) and sometimes it is a bit annoying that I lose points when I am up a whole piece for no compensation
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.