Carlsen just commented live at Qatar Masters Open 2015 that when you see a way to liquidate to a completely winning endgame, you don't think for long, you just do it. He added that sometimes you're being told after the game that you could've done something else that was +10, but you don't really care.
Like many others have also said it often just wastes time and frustrates when you have to find a different ('better') win. It would be better if we at least could choose to only try to solve puzzles where all winning moves (or drawing moves if that's the goal of the puzzle) are accepted (not even "look for a better one").
The easy solution to solve this problem is to only allow puzzles where only one sequence of moves wins (or draws). Another possibility is to improve when the engine calls a move an inaccuracy, a mistake, or a blunder (going from +6 to +5.5 often really isn't an inaccuracy for example, while the engine sees it that way and judges puzzles that way).
please stop. it is a puzzle
The goal to a puzzle is? solve it.
Multiple answers? Find the BEST answer.
is it wrong to solve a chess puzzle in more moves. Yes
Why? because that isn't the point of the puzzel.
But in a game would i need to think longer for a mate in 3, or play an easier mate in 6? This isn't an actual chess game. it is a Puzzle I repeat. A PUZZLE
The only goal for a puzzle is to find the BEST answer. Now stop arguing
@MoralIntentions: While the challenge in many such puzzles might be significantly reduced, I'd rather see more realistic puzzles like this.
DaanNoordenbos. Yes it is a puzzle. Yes the point of the puzzle is to solve it. No. The point of the puzzle is NOT to solve it in as few moves as you possibly can, the point of the puzzle is to solve it. If it is white to checkmate then your goal is to checkamte. Not to checkmate as soon as you possibly can. Puzzles that ask you to checkmate within as few moves as possible are completely impractical and don't actually help you get better at chess that much. The point of chess puzzles is to help you get better at chess. You are right in saying puzzles aren't an actual chess game however you are forgetting that the whole entire point of the chess puzzle is to help you to calculate in a real game and make it so when you calculate in a real game you calculate better. Having to see if you can checkmate quicker in a real game is completely impractical therefore by extension it is also an absolute waste of time when doing a chess puzzle.
Also I will stop "arguing" when someone presents a good reason for why the puzzle should be failed when we don't checkmate within as few moves as possible, although I think you mistake my tone to be argumentative. It is impossible to convey tone through text but sorry if my posts came out as being argumentative, they are meant to be more of a discussion :)
Daan, the goal of the puzzle is not arbitrary as you say. Nobody would be interested in a chess puzzle where the goal is to find (for example) the worst move. So, most of us practice these puzzles because they resemble the real chess game, where the only important goal is to checkmate.
By the way.. I would be interested in find-the-worst-move puzzles.
I think puzzles are for training. Train to look deep into the puzzle and understand the position.
Yes, there can be disappointment but on the long way I'm sure you learn lot of stuff..
Keep on solving puzzles!!!
sandrokan750 " the goal of the puzzle is not arbitrary as you say" Finding the best move is just some random thing?
"Nobody would be interested in a chess puzzle where the goal is to find (for example) the worst move." No because that has no use in a realgame.
More often there are multiple solutions. and then you find the BEST anwser. if the difference is slight then lichess wont care. but going from mate in 1 to mate in 3 is worse then mate in 10 to 12.
and this thread is 7 months old, why you replying to this?
