Are you rated 1600? Good.

@saymonsey said ^

Let's give a complete answer to the problem since there is none yet (I've personnally resigned after having found 2 different mate in 4...T.T)
So 1.Rf1 with the idea of playing 2.f3+ Ke3 3.Ng2 (or Nf5) # if black plays a random first move.
How can they stop our idea ?
1...exf1=Q is the most obvious and the crazy line, which has been shown several times already, with 2.Nf3 !! Being a deadly quiet move threatening a deadly discover check with the rook, and this can end up after 2... Qg1 (or Qg2)+ 3. Rg5# or after 2...Qb5 (or Qc4 or Nd8) 3.Re5 double check ! # or after 2...Kxf3 3. Rd2 discovered #

But there are actually other attempts to stop us !
1...f3 themselves looked very sensible to me even though it opens up the 4th rank, and I was absolutely astonished that the threat of 3.Rg4# created by 2.Rg1!! (rook back to its initial square !) couldn't be stopped

The third attempt is
1...e1=N but it fais to the prosaïc 2.Rxe1+ Qe2 3.Rxe2#

Nice (and super hard, given all the possible attemps in the position) puzzle

Extremely true

Funny, the game of golf is exactly the same. The better most players get, the more miserable they can become. We all strive to be better and time, money, talent, work for and against us.

Damn maaan!!! This post hits hard!!

It's just as brutal as beautiful.

Thanks!

@derlord13 said ^

What if I'm rated 1599? Does that mean that I'm bad and this doesn't apply?

NEINN...

I am 1600 in bullet

rf1 rg1 e1q rg3mate

Ggg

Ghh

@ZugAddict said ^

Try and solve a real chess problem that was composed by a human being, and not a "tactics trainer" puzzle that are essentially the empty calories of chess nutrition. Here's one to start with.

This seems like a highly contentious claim. I would argue that tactics that show up in real games are a lot more relevant for one's play than compositions.

You're right, I've overstated things there. I wouldn't say "regular" tactics are useless - they clearly are not. They are, however, one side of a coin that often obscures the other which is creative and flexible thought. Regular chess puzzles focus on established patterns that are fairly narrow and repetitive that we learn to apply in a somewhat rote manner to various situations. Actual, artistic, composed chess problems tend to be more about overcoming the ingrained filters "normal" tactics build up, and I suspect this helps us reduce blind spots and makes us more intellectually resourceful.

But my larger point is that, for me, at any rate, a beautiful puzzle isn't solved because it's "useful" but because t's actually really interesting and, paradoxically, that's what makes it also useful - beauty is memorable and "sticks" in the mind in a way rote training for training sake generally doesn't.

Interesting point. But, as a practical issue, aren't most composed problems really too difficult for someone rated between 1200 and 1600? They tend to involve, firstly, seeing one promising line a few moves deep, then, keeping the strengths/weaknesses of that line in mind, dong the same with another line, and so on. The general consensus seems to be that spending lots of time on "normal" tactics is a prerequisite to getting to intermediate stage. Another consideration is that even a "normal" pin, especially if combined with a fork, looks beautiful to me because it's something I couldn't have imagined not so long ago.

The answer to the puzzle is f3 Ke3 Rg2 Play anything I will play Rd3
Let me check with stockfish
\Wait what!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!