Some puzzles are 'encouraging' imprecise calculation

I'm not sure if this is an issue as such and maybe this is already common knowledge, but it's something I've noticed in a few puzzles and it seems unfortunate.

Take this puzzle for example:

3r3k/6bp/6p1/2P2b2/p7/P1p1P1PP/6B1/2RR2K1 b - - 2 34

The solution is as follows:

1...Rxd1
2.Rxd1 c2
3.Rc1 Bb2

and the pawn will promote or White will lose material.

In a game I think you absolutely need to calculate the following line before playing it as Black:

1...Rxd1
2. Rxd1 c2
3. Rd8+ Bf8
4. Rxf8+ Kg7

and now you have to see that there is no way for White to stop the pawn (Rc8 doesn't work due to the pawn on c5).

However, suppose you see the basic pattern of the solution, but completely miss the resource 3.Rd8+. Naturally you're going to play 1...Rxd1 much faster, which will give you an advantage in a puzzle storm context.

So this puzzle basically punishes you for doing the correct thing. That can't be right.

One may argue that this is about pattern recognition, not precise calculation, but finding 3.Rd8+ is also a result from pattern recognition, so it even punishes you for better pattern recognition.

While I've seen this in a few puzzles, I'd like to stress that most of the time it's not an issue (or I'm just happily missing the hidden resources and collect the points instead) and the puzzles on here are really good. Also I'm not a huge fan of the idea of adapting the puzzles to human thought patterns instead of objective properties of a position, but still cases such as this seem counterproductive (at least in a puzzle storm setting and also with regards to the rating of the puzzle).

this makes no sense

Something like this happens once in a while: I spend a lot of time working out some nasty variant and then I'm surprised to be asked for a different one which seemed quite obvious. But most often I have to admit that the move I got as a reply is actually better - even if it's easier to respond to. Which is the case here as well, Rc1 is a better response than Rd8+ at the moment (if you want to play on, that is).

I don't think there is an easy way around this. After all, replies which are harder to calculate for one user may be easier for another and vice versa. Unless you want the puzzle to have you show all main variants which would be way too complicated. I already had a puzzle where I only fell for a trap somewhere in 5th or 6th move and it would be only revealed 6 more moves later why my move was wrong; just imagine how long it would take to convince the engine that you have all variants correctly calculated in such case.

@HPC10411038 sorry if I didn't manage to explain well what I meant.

@mkubecek I agree there is no easy way around it. Perhaps if there was a way to add rating points to puzzles which have resources for the opponent which do not work out in the end (therefore do not appear in any computer main line, but should appear in the calculation, making the puzzle more challenging). Otherwise the players missing the resource lower the rating by beating the puzzle, making it look easier than it is.

If a person calculates a line faster than another, they'll score more points and that is fine - but a person missing a line entirely scoring higher seems a bit strange. Unless one wanted to argue that it is better not to look at the Rd8+ line at all when solving the puzzle.

Rc1 is certainly a better reply than Rd8+ as after Rd8+ and Rxf8+ there is no way to stop the pawn from promoting to a queen.

Still, I think it's counterproductive that a player should profit from missing an important line in a tactics puzzle.

Well, that applies to RL as well. Or why we do play Blitz?

And how to distinguish whether your intelligent subconcious has "seen" it or not? Maybe without the pawn c5 you would hesitate...

@Sarg0n yeah, all good points. What's more, even if the puzzle's rating was increased it would still be a similar situation and probably the solution shouldn't be to take the puzzle out of the puzzle pool, as the puzzle is fine. Given it's unclear how one would even start to go about fixing it, when there is not that much to be gained, maybe there's no point in looking into this much further, even if it was true.

This kind of thing happens a fair amount whenever I'm doing mate in 4s: the variation that it follows is a good deal easier than some sub-variation. And that's because to the engine the whole business has been solved, so the vars are all equal in its eyes (unfortunately, it has no sense of the levels of difficulty that we have).

A related situation is when a quite difficult Puzzle acquires a surprisingly low rating. It's clear enough to most everyone the continuation that "must be right" from the diagram (and so they play it, and get credit for a solution)...yet actually perceiving why that resultant position as a win is often well over the heads of anyone below a GM.

@svensp said in #1:
> suppose you see the basic pattern of the solution, but completely miss the resource 3.Rd8+

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the engine to distinguish between you missing that move and you knowing it doesn't work for White.

It is not the usual case, but sometimes the right solution looks like just pushing a pawn and winning the Queen, while the actual job was calculating the alternate checkmate in 5 that only that Queen sacrifice can avoid.

eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informa_super%C5%9Dar%C4%9Do

this phenomenon is called "information overload"

too much information leads to worse decision.