Puzzles are not puzzles

@OctoPinky said in #20:
> would agree if this was an engine testing position, but seriously... am I supposed to have more insight than SF at 19?

SF doesn't have any insight, but in any case puzzles aren't meant to measure you vs SF, they're measuring you vs other human puzzle solvers. It would make no sense to put puzzles in some special category purely because the solving technique isn't optimised in the particular version of SF that the site uses at some time. Knowing techniques for doing different things is part of chess. That said, you can change the puzzle themes.

@sammgus said in #21:
> SF doesn't have any insight

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Of course, I was in the same metaphorical mood than Nadja when she wrote "engines can be a bit blind...", sure I meant "calculation capabilities".

Anyway, the following is also true:

> puzzles aren't meant to measure you vs SF, they're measuring you vs other human puzzle solvers

I know ratings are calculated after people solving it, that's why I frequently wonder why pawns endgames are to me so consistently harder compared to the other themes... Two options are:
- I'm especially dumb for these kind of complex calculations.
- People have learned it before (actually I noticeably improved after reading some chapters from Lamprecht & Müller book).

@OctoPinky said in #22:
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Of course, I was in the same metaphorical mood than Nadja when she wrote "engines can be a bit blind...", sure I meant "calculation capabilities".

What I meant by having no insight is that a depth search is simply "sight", whereas insight would be the kind of pattern-inference used to easily resolve some high-depth problems. Which is important, because the difference means that we can't always say that SF having a hard time means that the puzzle is hard. But it will certainly be hard if one tries to calculate it like SF does.