pt.lichess.org/training/61817pt.lichess.org/training/61808I'm not sure if those are new puzzles. But I'm sure they are way underrated. I just don't understand how people can calculate all those crazy main lines and side lines. In one of them you lose 4 pawns for a small piece and there's no forcing continuation. So you have to play a lot of moves down 1 pawn without a clear winning sequence. And you have to see all that from the initial position. I don't understand. In the other puzzle you take a pawn just to be checked and lose a piece. Only a computer or a patzer can play like that!
I've done the first one in about 40 seconds lol it was easy
On second one i failed why he sacrificed knight I dont understand crazy
#3Because the queen would be trapped after ra1
Oh ok thanks
You can solve many hard puzzles by making the obvious moves but that is not how you should be solving them. When you start to analyze some lines more deeply you realize it's not so simple and the obvious moves start to look bad. Then you need to dig even deeper and that's when you see how difficult the thing really is.
Another example:
pt.lichess.org/training/61830In that one you need to give up your queen to play an end game with R+B+B against Q. And you lose a pawn in the end of the line. To me that's completely insane. I know the three pieces against the queen are superior but the problem is that you need to understand that losing a queen is not bad for you, which is very hard to do. I'm not saying the puzzles are impossible to solve; I'm just trying to prove that their ratings are wrong or at least too low for the difficulty involved.
@usercome that's not everything, White can play f4! and then you have to play Ra8 Qg5 Qf7!
I'm sure some of old puzzles were similiar. That's what you should expect to get when dealing with engine generated puzzles.
Puzzles are your potential to solve tactical situations during a game. Take the time to solve them. If you cannot solve a puzzle, how can you even expect to get 1200 rating. The ratings become incorrect when engines are used to solve them or we do not take the time to solve them.
If the puzzles had a permanent rating using four factors to derive a rating it might be better.
First factor, counting the amount of spaces (activity) on the chessboard. (More spaces makes it harder)
Second factor, counting the total value of the pieces on the chessboard. (More math calculations makes it harder)
Third factor counting the total number of pieces (mobility) on the chessboard. (More options to move pieces makes it harder)
Forth factor, taking into account how many moves it takes to gain the advantage to solve the puzzle. (More moves, demands depth perception, which makes it harder.
Maybe each puzzle needs a permanent rating like a centipawn value of the puzzle.
