|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
ulrich1987 12-Apr-13, 02:19 » Report abuse |
|||
|
bor1 12-Apr-13, 02:49 » Report abuse |
 |
||
|
123cro 12-Apr-13, 04:36 |
Comment deleted on 13-Apr-13, 01:35
|
||
|
josep_85 12-Apr-13, 04:44 » Report abuse |
During a game, I will not see mate in 2, I'll see mate in 3. 1. Nb3+ Bxb3, 2. Ke2+ Bd1+, 3. Rxd1# Is this wrong? What can happen if I don't make a mate in two, shall I lose the game? |
||
|
ulrich1987 12-Apr-13, 05:51 » Report abuse |
'why' And josep, I figured that one too... 'But if it can be done in two. Then it should.' I believe thats the way grandmasters think. |
||
|
kingdawar 12-Apr-13, 06:02 » Report abuse |
|
||
|
fezzik 12-Apr-13, 06:05 » Report abuse |
Brilliant! |
||
|
rooklecour1 12-Apr-13, 08:56 » Report abuse |
Solving Problems For this problem, which took about two minutes (a benefit of having read problem solving books, and NOT from being brilliant or clever), I too looked at the bishop and wonder what its purpose was. The only purpose was checking if the pawn moved. Why would the pawn move? Rh2? No, d3, Rh4? solution. It was that fast. |
||
|
josep_85 12-Apr-13, 09:18 » Report abuse |
But in a real game, I ask. If I have to spend more time thinking and then I lose (because of time), what is better? the straight way or waste time searching for something that could exist (or not) to finish in less moves? I have to adjust myself to my level, at first glance I only saw that forced mate in 3, so in real game i'll do that forced combination. If someday I'm better I think that, at first glance maybe not, but with a bit of training I'll see that forced mate in 2. But right now, if this was a real game position I'll go for the one I see. Wich I think is not wrong. |
||
» Report abuse |
Great... |
||
|
the_k_lags 12-Apr-13, 11:23 » Report abuse |
Certainly in a real game it wouldn't matter if you mated in 2 or 20, the real meaning of these puzzles is to challenge your mind to find the mate. Don't think of them not so much as specific situations you'll run into and be able to convert a win because you've done the puzzle. Instead think of them as challenges on your chess knowledge, mentally visualizing each possible move and searching for the best outcome. You may never face this exact set up in a game, in fact it's extremely unlikely you would, but the visualizing as many possible out comes of your moves and choosing the best is indeed something you will use in all your games. So to answer your question, you wouldn't lose if you mated in 3, but what if your chess knowledge was strong enough that mate in 3 didn't even cross your mind because you instantly saw the mate in 2? That's what the puzzles aim to do, help practice deep thought and calculations. |
||
|
carlossilva 12-Apr-13, 12:13 » Report abuse |
Errors www.google.com |
||
|
fezzik 12-Apr-13, 19:24 » Report abuse |
Ivanchuk... As Kingdawar pointed out, the goal of a chess puzzle is to find the quickest win. The ultimate goal of a chess game is to mate, and the fastest mate is usually the most aesthetically pleasing one. Chess puzzles are not complete games though. The winner in a chess puzzle is the one who solves it correctly. Think of this as tactics training. If you missed the tactic, figure out why. Don't complain because you missed it. |
||
|
josep_85 13-Apr-13, 01:37 » Report abuse |
I'm not an english speaker (talker?) so words don't come easy to me and I feel sometimes ashamed of my poor vocabulary and I feel that others won't understand me. Anyway, thank you. Since I've started doing this mate exercicies my chess has improved a lot, I mean, a lot. But there's still too much to improve. |
 Account required
Please log in to post comments.
|
My discussions
All discussions
White to move, mate in 2
th2 e2
bf4?