02 Dec 06
Originally posted by AlethiaIf the position is not legal, then it is not chess, and not worth people's time to solve. The burden is yours as the composer to make sure the position is legal. What you (and Black Queen) need to do is stop putting so many unneeded pieces on the board. That's why you get into trouble.
These ones should work. Don't go on about how they're illegal.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes but if people can't be bothered to solve puzzles unless they're legal, then that's (in my opinion) lazy. I only put puzzles on here because various people do try and solve them and thank me for them. I don't do it because it is fun; I have got better things to do with my time.
If the position is not legal, then it is not chess, and not worth people's time to solve. The burden is yours as the composer to make sure the position is legal. What you (and Black Queen) need to do is stop putting so many unneeded pieces on the board. That's why you get into trouble.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell, I don't agree to this. Developing chess skills isn't the only purpose of chess puzzles. It also develops your logical thinking, your ability to calculate ahead. I like solving puzzles no matter legal or not. With less pieces, the puzzles are easier. The only good thing that I can think of about puzzles without a lot of pieces is that they give you more aesthetic pleasure. 'Window dressing' is a good way of hiding the basic idea or mating pattern of the puzzle. You don't know which pieces are involved and which are not. You have to check more variations, therefore take more time, patience and do more calculating which is very necessary to develop your tactics. Of course, this is just my opinion.
If the position is not legal, then it is not chess, and not worth people's time to solve. The burden is yours as the composer to make sure the position is legal. What you (and Black Queen) need to do is stop putting so many unneeded pieces on the board. That's why you get into trouble.
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by AlethiaNo problems with 'illegal' positions, as far as it is made clear which laws of chess have been taken away, altered or added. But without this clarification, it is mandatory that the chess rules are applied. Otherwise, a whole range of problems lose their meaning, like the for isntance themate in two that was posted today.
Well, I think that- who cares if it's legal??? It's only supposed to be a bit of fun for us lower life forms, Big Dogg.
02 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AlethiaTrust me, the retro analysis takes far longer to do than finding your pathetically easy intended solutions. You're the one being lazy. You love dropping a bunch of needless pieces on boards, and you don't bother checking to see if the resulting position is even likely to be legal. That's just sloppy composition.
Yes but if people can't be bothered to solve puzzles unless they're legal, then that's (in my opinion) lazy. I only put puzzles on here because various people do try and solve them and thank me for them. I don't do it because it is fun; I have got better things to do with my time.
Originally posted by Alethia
Well, I think that- who cares if it's legal??? It's only supposed to be a bit of fun for us lower life forms, Big Dogg.
If you don't care whether the position is legal, then why should you care if the play is legal? Why not just let the side to move play King takes King? I mean, only lazy people whine about the rules, right? 🙄🙄
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by kbaumenIf you're going to call something a chess problem, it needs to follow chess rules, not because it will or will not help your chess skill, but because, without the rules, it is not a chess problem at all. It is some strange variant game masquerading as chess.
Well, I don't agree to this. Developing chess skills isn't the only purpose of chess puzzles. It also develops your logical thinking, your ability to calculate ahead. I like solving puzzles no matter legal or not. With less pieces, the puzzles are easier. The only good thing that I can think of about puzzles without a lot of pieces is that they give you more ...[text shortened]... lating which is very necessary to develop your tactics. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Chess variants have become popular, of course, but the composer always tells the solver up-front which rules are to be changed.
You are completely wrong that positions with less pieces are always easier. If that is true, why do people solve Black Queen/Alethia's problems in seconds, whereas the Benko problem I posted, a mate in 3 with very few pieces, remains unsolved?
02 Dec 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell, perhaps I was wrong...
If you're going to call something a [b]chess problem, it needs to follow chess rules, not because it will or will not help your chess skill, but because, without the rules, it is not a chess problem at all. It is some strange variant game masquerading as chess.
Chess variants have become popular, of course, but the composer always tells the sol ...[text shortened]... conds, whereas the Benko problem I posted, a mate in 3 with very few pieces, remains unsolved?[/b]
02 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSpeaking of strange variants:
If you're going to call something a [b]chess problem, it needs to follow chess rules, not because it will or will not help your chess skill, but because, without the rules, it is not a chess problem at all. It is some strange variant game masquerading as chess.
Chess variants have become popular, of course, but the composer always tells the sol conds, whereas the Benko problem I posted, a mate in 3 with very few pieces, remains unsolved?[/b]
Have you all looked at ''chess on the round'', "circular chess", "infinite chess", or "omega chess"
Edit: my only problem with theese puzzles is that they are so easy.