When I study tactics, I NEVER look at the solutions. I resist turning to that page, because if you do it once, it becomes a habit. I study the tactic continiously until I get it, I calculate the winning combo myself and have faith in myself, if I still don't get it, then I take out my chessboard and try to find it by fiddling with the peices, mind you, you should only do this after spending over 5 min on the given tactic. If I STILL can't find it then, then I insert the position beteewn two strong computers and see how they play it. Not having the solutions to these isn't that big a deal IMHO.
Originally posted by mateuloseOf course it's not a big deal.Just feed the position to an engine,and you have the solution,simple.But it would be intresting to see,just how many of the solutions in the book get refuted by an engine.At least,I'd be intrested to know 🙂
When I study tactics, I NEVER look at the solutions. I resist turning to that page, because if you do it once, it becomes a habit. I study the tactic continiously until I get it, I calculate the winning combo myself and have faith in myself, if I still don't get it, then I take out my chessboard and try to find it by fiddling with the peices, mind you, yo ...[text shortened]... mputers and see how they play it. Not having the solutions to these isn't that big a deal IMHO.
Btw,it's 'white to win',not 'white to mate'.I know,I know,the title is misleading,but these are no mate puzzles.Sometimes you have to look for a combination to win a piece,sometimes to mate,maybe even just to win a few pawns(not sure on that one,I haven't done all of them yet).
Guess that explains the 'other' outcomes.
I did come across 1 where fritz says black is better,so there are some faulty ones in there.Actually,I like it better that way,makes it more like a real game situation 🙂