To shoshonte...I can vote the puzzle down, agreed. But that won't restore my purloined rating points, will it? And voting a puzzle down won't prevent other chessers being screwed by it, will it?
I'm with Toadofsky. Rg7+ is natural and correct. Simple as that.
CheeseWhiz...I don't grasp your confusion. What "puzzles" you?
I solved puzzle #585 some time ago. But I don't have a chess engine in order to check it.
I stopped doing the training puzzles for similar reasons. The majority of the puzzles straight up fail you for any inaccurate move in the sequence. So if it's a 6-move puzzle, and you get the first 4 right, but you miss move 5 for something slightly less accurate but still winning (because there's no way to know precisely what the puzzle wants from you) you don't get a "good move, but you can do better" like in some puzzles. Instead you straight up fail. And the worst thing is that these puzzles, sometimes with the ultra long and convoluted sequence of forcing moves, are quite often low rated, like 1300 or so! So I lost tons of points for a puzzle that I get 80% correct and then miss a forced mate in 2 for a forced mate in 3. Or similarly, the puzzles like the one in question, where there is a natural mating sequence everyone knows, vs. a convoluted technical ones that is shorter. It's frustrating.
I think that it's important that we HAVE these sorts of puzzles, so that we CAN learn to look for shorter mating sequences or more technically accurate tactical lines than the ones that seem more natural. The longer the line, the more likely we are to miss a move in the sequence, so learning accuracy is important. What is NOT important, however, is to be continuously PUNISHED for sequences that are natural and still technically within the realm of accurate sequences that lead to forcing lines.
I think the only way to fix this, however, is for the puzzle designers to put more effort into creating the puzzles and realize that their particularly tricky goal is not the most natural continuation, and at least give the student a "good move, but you can do better" when they pick the natural sequence on them. That isn't something, to my knowledge, however that is implemented in every puzzle, but rather something that has to be added to the puzzle design by the designer I assume.
If a move results in x+1 relative to shortest sequence he'll give you another shot, even though really we already failed to 'find the best move'. Your solution is x+2. Maybe on easy mode it should allow that as a try-again too.
I would like it if we could choose to only fail puzzles when we give away our advantage (the evaluation goes from more than 2 to less than 0.75) or when we don't take the advantage when we can do so (which is the same thing, except the last move by your opponent must be a mistake in this case).
If I see a way to win a queen or mate in 4 in a real game, I'm not going to look for a mate in 2.
I do think downvoting helps a little bit, if I remember correctly there used to be more of these situations.
look at this puzzle, which just failed me even though checkmate in minimal number of moves..
http://nl.lichess.org/training/17931I want to go queen to h, queen to g8 and rook to h. Fail. I check the correct result, also a mate in 3. ? :) Anyone know how that works?
I've seen so many of these when solving anonymously and from report by other people that I won't do the puzzles anymore.
I always think that lichess would have been (and still would be) far better providing the best in game play (and it is very very good) without spreading out too much into puzzles and such like.
Personally, I'd rather have sound choice, a bigger choice of pieces/board size etc, different sorts of competitions (league play was voted #1 by the users some time ago) and just an amazing user experience overall. Just my two pennyworth.
Completely agree
ahai puzzles so easy
Do as I did: Forget about your training rating, its ONLY purpose is to get puzzles about a certain level. You can even choose to get puzzles above or under your level. If a puzzle is really bad, I just downvote it. But I did not downvote this one, because even tough it`s wrong not giving another chance if there`s a mate in 2 and you chose a mate in 2 with 2 spite blocks (I agree 100% with that), you did learn something: there`s a mate in 2 that you didn`t saw just because you stopped looking, so who cares? You move on to another puzzle. Just keep doing them and forget about ratings.