Ok, so I tried to make this puzzle: lichess.org/training/WbM9H and ok, I easily saw mate in 2 with Qg5+ Kf8 Rh8 mate, so I didn't look any further but when I played it the computer says no because there is another mate: Qh8+ Kg6 Qh6. The reason it is counted as wrong is because white's player already reached that position twice, failing to see mate. I believe this puzzle is uninstructive and unfair and should be deleted.
Wow, if this is how puzzle generator works, there might be more nonsense like this. Imagine you have to find a horribly stupid move in a puzzle, because it secures a draw by repetition in an otherwise bad position.
@Cyranolmighty said in #1:
> Ok, so I tried to make this puzzle: lichess.org/training/WbM9H and ok, I easily saw mate in 2 with Qg5+ Kf8 Rh8 mate, so I didn't look any further but when I played it the computer says no because there is another mate: Qh8+ Kg6 Qh6. The reason it is counted as wrong is because white's player already reached that position twice, failing to see mate. I believe this puzzle is uninstructive and unfair and should be deleted.
i say keep it
as puzzles train you for games and what good are puzzles if they dont follow the same rules as normal chess
how is a puzzle bad because you did not look at the notation?
it makes the puzzle instructive by teaching the player to always check the notation bad for clues
> Ok, so I tried to make this puzzle: lichess.org/training/WbM9H and ok, I easily saw mate in 2 with Qg5+ Kf8 Rh8 mate, so I didn't look any further but when I played it the computer says no because there is another mate: Qh8+ Kg6 Qh6. The reason it is counted as wrong is because white's player already reached that position twice, failing to see mate. I believe this puzzle is uninstructive and unfair and should be deleted.
i say keep it
as puzzles train you for games and what good are puzzles if they dont follow the same rules as normal chess
how is a puzzle bad because you did not look at the notation?
it makes the puzzle instructive by teaching the player to always check the notation bad for clues
@for_cryingout_loud said in #3:
> i say keep it
> as puzzles train you for games and what good are puzzles if they dont follow the same rules as normal chess
> how is a puzzle bad because you did not look at the notation?
> it makes the puzzle instructive by teaching the player to always check the notation bad for clues
Precisely this one doesn't train you for games. When you're in a game yourself, when you repeat the position three times consecutively (and not separated by some other moves) you happen to know it, contrarily to the careless puzzle solver. Besides, in a blitz over the board as it was the case in the featured game, you do not take notes, so I don't see the point of "looking at scoresheet" It is a very unrealistic situation for me since first, I wouldn't repeat the position in the first place if I have two easy different mates in two and secondly, if someone forces me to repeeat it I find the other mate in two. But here on this problem, you didn't play the moves, you barely make attention to the scoresheet, it's not your game. Once again, this one is unpractical, unrealistic and doesn't train you for games.
> i say keep it
> as puzzles train you for games and what good are puzzles if they dont follow the same rules as normal chess
> how is a puzzle bad because you did not look at the notation?
> it makes the puzzle instructive by teaching the player to always check the notation bad for clues
Precisely this one doesn't train you for games. When you're in a game yourself, when you repeat the position three times consecutively (and not separated by some other moves) you happen to know it, contrarily to the careless puzzle solver. Besides, in a blitz over the board as it was the case in the featured game, you do not take notes, so I don't see the point of "looking at scoresheet" It is a very unrealistic situation for me since first, I wouldn't repeat the position in the first place if I have two easy different mates in two and secondly, if someone forces me to repeeat it I find the other mate in two. But here on this problem, you didn't play the moves, you barely make attention to the scoresheet, it's not your game. Once again, this one is unpractical, unrealistic and doesn't train you for games.
I have come over hundreds of puzzles like this, where the computer thinking is based on move calculation, and the particular (+) generated in its program. The moves we think may be substitutes, but the program defines to state a particular move out of twos-or threes whatever.
Did you get this puzzle randomly or via a direct link?
The puzzle generator already ignores any positions with 2-times repetitions in order to avoid possible issues like this due to a third repetition. There still are some old puzzles that were generated before this restriction was added but it shouldn't be possible to get them randomly anymore.
Though in general, you can also just downvote bad puzzles. Commonly downvoted puzzles also aren't selected anymore.
The puzzle generator already ignores any positions with 2-times repetitions in order to avoid possible issues like this due to a third repetition. There still are some old puzzles that were generated before this restriction was added but it shouldn't be possible to get them randomly anymore.
Though in general, you can also just downvote bad puzzles. Commonly downvoted puzzles also aren't selected anymore.
on the mobile app you can’t even see past moves. you can only go back one move in the game history until you solve the puzzle.
Yep, all those three-time ones should get deleted.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.