here's another one from chesstempo. This thing cost me a whole 24 points, and it was one of those problems that I knew I was hopeless all along, I never had a chance of solving it.
The interesting thing about this puzzle is that it's BLACK to move.
Amazing, isn't it? White seems to have a huge attack on the kingside, while black's pieces are blocked by pawns, tied to defense, etc, yet it's black to play and win. Yeah, good luck.
Those positions on Chesstempo always seem to have been reached by total random "Internet-1300-guy" play, and then, somewhere, on a completely random point, a position is taken out and requires you to make a computerish move (or move sequence) to gain the advantage... an advantage which would have been given away two moves later by the 1300 playing the game, anyway. 😉
About the position, it does not seem to me that Black is winning, so I suppose I do not "see" the answer either - maybe I have seen the solution move, but I have not seen at all why the move's resulting position would favour Black - he's down two pawns and I do not see much that can be called compensation. The only thing there is, is White's wicked King, but the troubles around him do not seem to serious...
To Heinzkat's post about chesstempo. The games are taken from real games, and they work. It took me some time to adjust to this, but now I don't feel strange. I think they are way better than composed or selected "educative" puzzles. CT-Art had lots of them and my growth was much, much slower until I switchted to chesstempo. I can now comfortably say that I can analyze positions fairly good.
I don't see why the moves seem computerish to you though.
Well Qc3 THREATENS Rde7, and apparently, the computer finds within a few seconds that there is no way to defend this properly. So we all say "oh gee is that must be true somehow, remarkable" and go on. It is so uninspired, so uninspiring, how can I say it, it has nothing to do with chess, the chess we all love. I mean: the position comes from a game played between two complete dummies and then a deus ex machina pops up with a perfect move string. And we can't object to it because the computer has it all worked out and gives the one position a +1 and the other -3. It is completely irrational, the required thinking is completely irrational, so irrational I stop making any sense because of it.
(huh?)
Originally posted by heinzkatIf by the position being rational, you mean "natural", it's probably as natural as it gets, since they are taken from real games. The positions usually don't look very natural, but a lot of positions you get don't look natural either. In books where they choose positions from GM games, there are complicated positions and not so complicated positions. I don't see the difference with the ones in CT. I don't think they choose 1300 rated games exclusively 🙂
Well Qc3 THREATENS Rde7, and apparently, the computer finds within a few seconds that there is no way to defend this properly. So we all say "oh gee is that must be true somehow, remarkable" and go on. It is so uninspired, so uninspiring, how can I say it, it has nothing to do with chess, the chess we all love. I mean: the position comes from a game played ing is completely irrational, so irrational I stop making any sense because of it.
(huh?)
(not talking about the one above. it's a completely stupid position 🙂 )
I don't understand what you mean by the required thinking being irrational. If by rational you mean "suitable for verbal/positional explanation," hardly any tactical position can be. If by irrational you mean "too difficult to come up with variations because they are computer generated in the first place," that issue gets sorted out by the ratings. I sometimes give up and guess the move, and it is NEVER EVER correct. (well my chess instincts suck, but still.) So I make the move that I had guessed as my second choice. that's even worse. 🙂
So, people do have to come up with variations to gain points, and that eventually makes you get problems which you can calculate the lines of.
By the way, I can't compare CTS's problem set because I never reached a respectable rating there, and all I was getting was positions where the black queen got trapped on b2 or a black bishop hung to Qh4+ 🙂
(too long? Well I got nothing better to do. the post is at your service.)
The problem with ChessTempo is that the constructions * - carefully composed on an online blitz site by one 1300 vs. another 1300 - are not suitable for computer bulldozering.
* The way the positions have been "set up" by both sides
(that makes a little more sense, it took me some extra time but there you have it)
I tried this and saw 1...Qc3 quite quick but the follow up looked 'scatty'.
Too many options. Then realised it was 'one of those'.
No clockwork combination just find the best move.
It's the kind of move you play and see what your opponent does.
I prefer to see and work out the whole thing and then you know
you have it. (I think we all do).
I can see the value of such ugly set positions but one is left with
an empty feeling. What happens? White will not resign.
To be honest I got more fun out the position looking for a White
win with White to play. (none I could see).
I had a book full of those positions once. I hated it.
I think it was called 'Find the Best Move' or something like that.
The solution just led to a plus with still a lot of life in the position.
It's a bit like picking the correct restaurant but not having the meal.
That doesn't make sense. Well, if you are very interested in computer evaluations ChessTempo does make sense. But if you are interested in playing chess, why bother? The positions you get "correct" are unsatisfying and playing over the positions that you get "incorrect" you say, "oh, OK, that seems better indeed in a computer's eyes" and move on.
This can't be your definition of satisfying exercises, you make a move and then your opponent BANG! sacrifices his Queen for no apparent reason:
A good "tactical" position is like this:
1) Bang! There appears to be a good move. At least, it looks quite good...
2) A period of confusion in the next few moves, is the move actually any good? All lines have to be accounted for to be certain... i.e. if you sacrifice a Queen in exchange for some checks you'd better be certain the King doesn't escape.
3) An application that is any good will pick the most entertaining or instructive line; i.e. a line that has to be seen prior to making the first move, a line that validates its soundness - not a line that the computer deems "best" for the defending side. Humans in a position "tactically worse" for them tend to stall the moment of execution, being as tenacious as possible. CT just sacks the Queen the moment you have moved, just because IT has seen all the lines without any need of verification of the user.
Originally posted by heinzkat1&2 are there allright in chesstempo. no1 is not ALWAYS there though, most of the time you see the idea quickly and have to fry your brain to make it work, but sometimes you have to struggle to even come up with the idea. which I find pretty nice too.
A good "tactical" position is like this:
1) Bang! There appears to be a good move. At least, it looks quite good...
2) A period of confusion in the next few moves, is the move actually any good? All lines have to be accounted for to be certain... i.e. if you sacrifice a Queen in exchange for some checks you'd better be certain the King doesn't escape.
ed, just because IT has seen all the lines without any need of verification of the user.
3)yes, it sometimes bothers to see a problem being underrated because some "see it play it" patzers move without any serious calculation of all defenses, but this happens rarely. if you're high rated, or just serious about your calculations, it won't affect you anyway. believe me, you really need to see A LOT of stuff if you want to move up there.
the puzzle posted in this thread was obviously not a regular one, that's why I posted it. anyway, some people don't like changing their minds.
Originally posted by heinzkat
But you are right, I do not understand at all what CT is all about, I don't understand the underlying concept, it should at least remotely have something to do with Chess, right?
This is an example of why I REALLY do not UNDERSTAND what CT wants from me. In any puzzle environment you can stop looking at the consequences of 1. ... Qb7/Qb8 quite quickly, since they are two different moves that reach the same thing. (I discarded the possibility anyway)
So I played the normal looking 1. ... Rb3 and actually expected the friggin' thing to sac its Queen immediately, or something on c4 on the second move, since it would already anticipate the consequences of something along the lines of Qd6/Rxb2+/Qxa3+. But no, it wants you to play 1. ... Qb7. In the comments, the owner of the site actually comments "Qb7 wins a couple of pawns more than Qb8", which makes me believe that he is far too concerned with computer evaluations rather than how much you yourself understand of what is going on.
I really do not understand what kind of moves CT wants from me - how annoying 😕