Problem 3165 commentary

Site Feedback
#1

This seems more of a “game study” rather than a “tactical problem”.
It is given as “red to move and win” hinting that there should be some decisive advantage, but even after 10 moves of the principal variation (many not forced) it goes into a technical ending with the same number of pieces.

I don’t doubt that it is a win by Kingsrow analysis, but “red to move and win” misleads into thinking there is some tactical shot

I think a better label would be “what would you play as red” when the problem is so long and not forced (i.e. many variants).

#2

@maurizio-de-leo
Good points you’ve made.
Some problems are really snappy and quick and very clever.
What they all have in common is that the opponent will always lose if you play the right moves.
There are sometimes a few moves to convince Kingsrow that you have gained a piece or positional advantage.
These are not strike problems (well some are) or made up problems - they are from actual play and you can see in the game result 1/2 - 1/2 for a draw or 1-0 etc for a white win, whether the player spotted the win.
It’s really worth sticking with.
Joe

#3

*stroke I meant - not strike

#4

@maurizio-de-leo
I just looked at it!
You’re right - 3165 is insane!

#5

Must have a look at it.

#6

Yep, there are some ridiculous puzzles that I think only an engine could solve. Including one that is 20 moves long! I don’t think I want to give a different label based on the problem length, that gives a huge clue as to the problem difficulty. And most puzzles are much shorter. But yeah, maybe you’re right, maybe just “red to play” or “what should red play” or “what would you play as red” would have been better.

#7

I ran it through Kingsrow. Not obvious but not as opaque as some others.