I originally found this puzzle on chessbase. A trainer has been using it as sort of a "Talent Test." Anyway, try it first without a digram. Its a 2 part problem. I will post the next part when someone correctly answers this.
The Talent Test
December 25, 2001
We start with a two-part problem, one I have been using for many many years as a quicky test for the talent of chess players. Part one of the problem is fairly easy. But you must take the time to solve it if you want to enjoy the rest.
White to play and win
white: Kc8, b5, h2
black: Ka7, a6, b7
Please try to find the solution yourself, and make a note of the time you take to solve it.
I'd play 1.h4 and race the black a-pawn to queens. It's a very simple win.
1.bxa6 is the best move. After the recapture there is no problem queening first and stopping Black from promoting on a1.
The move 1.b6+ is best. For some reason it is necessary to sacrifice the b-pawn, after that the h-pawn wins the queen race.
I'd move my king to c7. This is a strategic move that will win the game for White.
That evening there was a gala dinner in honour of Garry Kasparov, attended by top industrialist figures, famous personalities, editors of major German newspapers. Everyone was fascinated by the incredible tales of chess skill that were told about the the world chess champion.
At some stage I decided to show the guests something dramatic. "Now everybody watch," I announced, "I'm going to ask Garry to solve a complex problem in his mind." Then I dictated the position you have just solved to him and, beaming at everyone around the table. Garry frowned, shook his head and said: "Sorry, you gave me the wrong position." Oops, how embarrassing. I dictated it again, slowly and carefully, but Garry still kept shaking his head and muttering "something is wrong," and was incapable of giving the required answer.
What was the explanation? The problem was simply too easy, he could not understand why I would ask him something as elementary as that. I suppose it is similar to having a world-famous mathematician and asking him to demonstrate his skills by multiplying the numbers 7 and 3.
"It is part one of a two-part problem, Garry," I said. "Please just give me the solution!" That was of course no problem, and he rattled it off in a disgruntled mutter at high speed. "Okay, now we come to part two," I said, and proceeded with the problem I am going to share with you.
Originally posted by likeforestHow come your rating is so crap? I expected that you might have known something about the game after quoting all of that?
That evening there was a gala dinner in honour of Garry Kasparov, attended by top industrialist figures, famous personalities, editors of major German newspapers. Everyone was fascinated by the incredible tales of chess skill that were told about the the world chess champion.
At some stage I decided to show the guests something dramatic. "Now everybod ...[text shortened]... o part two," I said, and proceeded with the problem I am going to share with you.
Originally posted by likeforestNot only obsessed. The higher rating, the more worthy person you are. Once I did not play seriously on this site. So after a lot of lost games, most of them because of time out, I was rude enough to post a thread with question about sicilian, and with my rating that was just 1000 it was very, very bad idea!
why are people here so obsessed with rating? why do you consider lower rated players crap? my game is actually much better than my rating here would suggest. im assuming far better than your crappy game.
Rating racism I would say. Nobody started to play chess with 2000 rating, but if we have strong will to improve and sometimes post something with rating less than 1600, what is wrong with that.
And rating here can be, but also sometimes it is not relevant in showing someone playing strength, especially on this site.
Who is tougher opponent in otb, 1600 rhp who thinks for 10 minutes about each move, uses databases and self annotates every move and possible variation or 1200 rhp player who just look on the board and make move right away. In addition, some players keep slaughtering 200 points weaker players to build up rating, and others play with players 300 points stronger then themselves, it affects immensly on rating, but do not have much to do with playing strength. Rating can vary 400 or 500 points only because of someones approach.
I am sorry about grammar, but I am on vacation so I acces to this site with laptop which is not mine, so I cant find any signs
😕
Originally posted by likeforestok, give the second part of the problem too.
That evening there was a gala dinner in honour of Garry Kasparov, attended by top industrialist figures, famous personalities, editors of major German newspapers. Everyone was fascinated by the incredible tales of chess skill that were told about the the world chess champion.
At some stage I decided to show the guests something dramatic. "Now everybod ...[text shortened]... o part two," I said, and proceeded with the problem I am going to share with you.
it took me about a minute or 2 after I set up the position in my head.
The correct move is obviously b6+ with a very easy pawn race for white.
Part two:
The two questions we have for you today are:
In what way does moving the white king from c8 to d8 change anything? For your information Garry answered this with a smile of approval in about 15 seconds.
How does White win this position? Garry took 2 minutes and 15 seconds, sitting at the dinner table without a board or pieces.
I have given the problem to many other great chess talents and timed them from five to fifteen minutes to not at all – always without a board or pieces. Plese try to solve wothout looking at a diagram. If you do not succeed, get a board and pieces. Do not show it to Fritz or any other top chess program.
Please make a note of the time you took with or without a board.
Originally posted by ivan2908Why do people feel the need to constantly rationalize their rating? So many RHPers like to say, "My rating says I'm 1200, but I'm really 1800." No, you're not, because if you were you'd be at least somewhere around 1800. The "I don't analyze" or "I only play stronger players" excuse isn't valid, because either way it's reflected in the rating. Someone that constantly beats up weaker players will rise in rating very slowly, but someone that plays stronger players will either stagnate or move very quickly; if they stagnate for long, then they're simply not improving, and this is reflected in the rating.
Not only obsessed. The higher rating, the more worthy person you are. Once I did not play seriously on this site. So after a lot of lost games, most of them because of time out, I was rude enough to post a thread with question about sicilian, and with my rating that was just 1000 it was very, very bad idea!
Rating racism I would say. Nobody started to play ...[text shortened]... on vacation so I acces to this site with laptop which is not mine, so I cant find any signs
😕
The ratings aren't perfect. Someone that's 1250 and someone that's 1300 might very well play equally, but the difference between 1200 and 1600 is huge, and there's no proper excuse you can build to say they're equal. A 1200 player drops pieces in probably every game, for example; a 1600 player likely doesn't.