|
I keep getting an error message about "some settings failed to load" and can't move anything. I have to assume the obvious move isn't correct?
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
There's something broken with the puzzle because if you "play against computer" its black to move. However, even in that position the eval is +2. The eval with white to move is like checkmate in 32 after the obvious move, so I think chess.com is broken right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:There's something broken with the puzzle because if you "play against computer" its black to move. However, even in that position the eval is +2. The eval with white to move is like checkmate in 32 after the obvious move, so I think chess.com is broken right now. No this is just how chess.com's puzzles work. They always start with an opponent move, so the position shown isn't actually the puzzle, the puzzle is the position resulting from that first move (which is preset by the puzzle-maker). I'm not sure why it's like this, my assumption is that it's to allow en passant to work correctly if that's part of the puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 03:49
|
|
|
When I follow the link on my phone, there's a green button with a hand holding the piece that makes white's move and starts the puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 04:34
|
|
|
Goddanm that was definitely a puzzle. I had 0 clue what was going on first move so I had to analyze it, then when the idea clicked the rest came pretty readily, very cool. For once an idea I can actually try and apply to games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 08:40
|
|
|
I think that is the most bullied I've ever seen a queen be...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 08:57
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Good puzzle (chesscom 2100ish): I got it eventually but there's no way I would ever see that in a game. Fun though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I got it eventually but there's no way I would ever see that in a game. Fun though. I wouldn't be able to ever trap a queen like that. However, at my elo it is definitely possible to lure some rube into taking my 'blunder' without them spotting the xray on the king followup
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I got it eventually but there's no way I would ever see that in a game. Fun though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2024 19:43
|
|
|
I'm reading Lawson's book on Morphy (recent edition) and man is this old school notation tough. I tried to play it out to make a guess at what "dis ch" meant but gave up after a while. You apparently had to count Black's rank from their perspective  (see move 1)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 22:52
|
|
|
I actually find the old notation way easier to follow. I also already mentally think of spaces like e5 as "black's e4," though, so I might just Intuit these things kinda weirdly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Bruce Hussein Daddy posted:I'm reading Lawson's book on Morphy (recent edition) and man is this old school notation tough. I tried to play it out to make a guess at what "dis ch" meant but gave up after a while. You apparently had to count Black's rank from their perspective Descriptive notation is wild. At least this book calls knights N. You haven't truly experienced descriptive notation until you read a really old book with a move like "Kt. - K. Kt.'s 5th" "Dis ch" would be discovered check.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 23:52
|
|
|
I think this lichess study has every game from the book recorded: https://lichess.org/study/fSBpZOSu/P5DX0lLk
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2024 23:53
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:"Dis ch" would be discovered check. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Good puzzle (chesscom 2100ish): This is a great and really instructive puzzle. I'm very pleased with myself that I saw what the theme was and was able to solve it. Amazing with what seems like a whole board to roam that Black's King and Queen can't avoid getting stuck onto the same diagonal or rank or file for White to win the Queen via skewer or pin.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
Just swindled the poo poo out of a game, one of the best feelings in chess. Separately, I was intentional about NOT stalemating in another game I won. Almost makes up for all the games I lost and puzzles I sucked at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
Funny ending to a game I just had. I played Qb7 and the opponent resigned. Both players displaying tunnel vision here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 03:05
|
|
|
Redmark posted:Funny ending to a game I just had. Ne2 would have been M1 right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 06:50
|
|
|
Mikojan posted:Ne2 would have been M1 right? Qxe2 though. Not sure I understand the op, I'm probably missing something. E: I wouldn't have played Qb7 as my next move though, probably Re8 to remove the fork opportunity and freeze (and trade off) the queens so there's no more mating threat. But I'm also terrible at chess so E2: ah I thought op meant the tunnel vision was before white goes on to play Qb7. That loses for white E3: ^ and that's probably what you were talking about. Told you I'm terrible. regulargonzalez fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Mar 12, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 08:10
|
|
|
I thought OP was referring to a missed Ne2# opportunity on the previous move, I didn't notice the queen could just take. But as you say, after Qb7 now ... Ne2+, Kh2 Qh4# is the line both players missed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2024 12:15
|
|
|
Redmark posted:the opponent resigned. I would never make this mistake because I don't pay attention to my opponent's threats. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
I'm not good enough to play at a level where I can presume that a losing position is a guaranteed win for my opponent: so I never resign. You have to checkmate me, bitch, and I know there's a pretty good chance you blunder pieces before you figure out how. And another pretty good chance you accidentally stalemate me. Get on my level. like 1000 ELO
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
I forced a draw from a losing position over the board against a guy in the office and it was so satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:stalemate Speaking of, when I am supreme ruler of FIDE I'm changing this rule. The stalemated player loses. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
so when a game is just traded down to K vs. K, both players lose? Also stalemate by repetition, player who makes last move loses? Or do you just mean stalemates when the player has no legal moves remaining.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
Bruce Hussein Daddy posted:Speaking of, when I am supreme ruler of FIDE I'm changing this rule. The stalemated player wins. fixed your post
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
tricking a stalemate from a lost position feels better than winning, it’s the best rule
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:so when a game is just traded down to K vs. K, both players lose? Also stalemate by repetition, player who makes last move loses? Or do you just mean stalemates when the player has no legal moves remaining. Stalemate specifically means a position where one player has no legal moves, the others you mention are "draw by insufficient material" and "draw by repetition"
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Insufficient material draws are actually incredibly complex if you take a literal interpretation of FIDE rules, to the point that stockfish cannot calculate them.   http://tom7.org/chess/longest.pdf Salt Fish fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Mar 13, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:04
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna be sick
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
Stalemating is a great rule because of how many people hate it. Everybody always thinks "I trapped the enemy king, why is that not a win for me", because they always think of it from the side of the winning player rather than the losing player. If stalemate didn't exist, then what's the point of even playing out an endgame where you don't have sufficient material to win? Most people resign there anyway, but the existence of stalemate at least gives you something to play for rather than a resignation being the only thing worth doing. It also means that you can't win a game just by taking all the opponents pieces. The objective of the game is to checkmate the king, not to win material. If you can't checkmate the king, you didn't win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
How I usually explain it to folk who think stalemate should be a win: If you're not good enough to checkmate your opponent you don't deserve the win or If you let your opponent outplay you in the endgame such that it's a stalemate, you clearly weren't better in that game and don't deserve the win
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
I know I'm reading this wrong, but oh boy does it look like black has two light square bishops to white's two dark square bishops. Which I guess is possible via promotion but what a weird rear end situation to invent. e: The more I look at it the more convinced I am that I'm not wrong, it is some bizarro world promotion situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Positions constructed to confuse chess engines are usually very weird like that. Generally the point is less "this is a position that could occur in a real game" and more "there's nothing in the rules that says this position is impossible so the software has to account for it".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I know I'm reading this wrong, but oh boy does it look like black has two light square bishops to white's two dark square bishops. Which I guess is possible via promotion but what a weird rear end situation to invent. The goal of the paper is to calculate the longest possible game of chess, so it assumes collusion between both players, and tries to do it strictly within the most literal interpretation of FIDE rules. Speaking of ambiguous FIDE rules, there is some debate about the veracity of this claim, but this puzzle purports to take advantage of a poorly worded FIDE rule:  The rule was clarified in 1974 to make this puzzle no longer possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The goal of the paper is to calculate the longest possible game of chess, so it assumes collusion between both players, and tries to do it strictly within the most literal interpretation of FIDE rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The goal of the paper is to calculate the longest possible game of chess, so it assumes collusion between both players, and tries to do it strictly within the most literal interpretation of FIDE rules. oh hey is this the O-O-O-O-O-O puzzle? I've seen that one
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2024 22:51
|
|
|
Olothreutes posted:I know I'm reading this wrong, but oh boy does it look like black has two light square bishops to white's two dark square bishops. Which I guess is possible via promotion but what a weird rear end situation to invent. You're not wrong that's exactly what's happening here
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2024 02:01
|
|
|
https://lichess.org/training/YxoqM Today's lichess puzzle of the day isn't anything too special, but the resulting endgame position is tricky. It's a much bigger challenge trying to convert it than it is to solve the puzzle, to me at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
fisting by many posted:https://lichess.org/training/YxoqM Yeah, QvR is annoying to start with, but I really don't know how to think about approaching QvR and also a passed pawn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:09
|
|
