| Problem's comments |
| Date | Tactician | Rated beauty | Comment |
| 2005-12-25 06:11:28 | Krainell |  | |
| 2006-07-18 07:25:48 | apeman | | |
| 2006-09-15 11:33:14 | abcdef | | |
| 2007-03-18 00:11:35 | Chesser | | |
| 2007-03-18 00:12:00 | Chesser | | |
| 2007-03-18 00:12:40 | Chesser | | This was WAY to easy. Piontless, how could this be rated 1769.2??!?! |
| 2007-03-18 22:15:32 | chesswiz | | |
| 2007-04-09 22:44:03 | jimmeebgood | | easier than most |
| 2007-05-14 17:26:40 | AlexeiD | | |
| 2007-05-18 15:23:28 | james1471 | | |
| 2007-05-24 13:23:13 | Yuan | | very difficult |
| 2007-06-18 08:21:34 | palindrome | | quite easy |
| 2007-06-20 07:44:30 | cassy | | |
| 2007-06-20 17:57:18 | even | | |
| 2007-07-04 05:04:33 | mbingham | | This looks more like 700 than 1700. |
| 2007-07-08 03:46:22 | Olar | | easy |
| 2007-07-13 00:43:06 | kpmartin18 | | Outstanding puzzle, best one on the site |
| 2007-07-23 07:56:27 | Markusgoth | | Easy. A bit too high for 1700s but it is not a bad problem at all, especially for 1300s-1500s. |
| 2007-08-05 02:02:35 | admeyer73 | | It's overated, but not that bad because it's so easy it looks like there is a hidden trick involved. Time burns off your clock and your rating decreases. |
| 2007-08-05 02:07:42 | admeyer73 | | It's overated, but not that bad because it's so easy it looks like there is a hidden trick involved. Time burns off your clock and your rating decreases. |
| 2007-08-11 20:32:45 | Kingspawn | | |
| 2007-08-16 19:31:55 | mastermind2007 | | Well, it's not obvious at once, but if you've figured it out it seems to be very easy! |
| 2007-08-24 03:43:52 | RuneMusen | | |
| 2007-08-24 03:43:56 | RuneMusen | | |
| 2007-08-24 03:44:02 | RuneMusen | | |
| 2007-08-30 23:27:00 | Auge | | |
| 2007-09-06 17:39:29 | john2001plus | | I found it difficult because it was not what I expected. |
| 2007-09-10 18:23:36 | notquitekarpov | | Pointless - solution is the most natural looking move anyway. |
| 2007-09-24 03:05:14 | stardust762 | | |
| 2007-09-24 03:05:22 | stardust762 | | |
| 2007-10-13 17:12:17 | dunness | | |
| 2007-10-14 21:47:07 | realpatzer | | why |
| 2007-10-22 23:39:19 | nicola | | too easy for 1768 :) |
| 2007-10-29 13:57:34 | Sithe | | |
| 2007-11-11 21:03:41 | JDRUMMER | | |
| 2007-12-04 05:23:46 | klopstockus | | |
| 2007-12-18 23:48:22 | ruf2002pl | | |
| 2007-12-21 05:23:18 | biike | | |
| 2008-01-07 22:14:22 | nordmela | | too easy |
| 2008-01-12 10:50:43 | clav | | IMO it's not easy, because it really looks like as if there was something hidden in that position. It must have been taken from a real game. |
| 2008-01-15 15:09:14 | elmafi | | |
| 2008-01-28 04:01:05 | mryucky | | I agree, it is poor |
| 2008-02-02 18:14:43 | Boriskudelin | | It is not that bad. The point id that you have to find out it WAS easy. When you do a lot of tactics - then you don't really know what to look for. For an easy one or for a hard one:) So it works :) |
| 2008-02-04 22:54:47 | Carnap | | It is a fairly easy problem. It does appear devious though. |
| 2008-02-08 11:07:21 | KPastorius | | |
| 2008-02-15 17:18:23 | PsyMar | | I didn't know if it was easy or hard, and I got it wrong. I didn't even see the solution as a possible move. |
| 2008-02-23 17:45:37 | hgrattan | | |
| 2008-02-29 08:27:55 | cyruslaihy | | it looks complicated, make you think a lot, then you arrove at the most obvious answer |
| 2008-03-08 17:16:11 | steinar | | Why? |
| 2008-03-10 18:42:52 | chessmunz | | |
| 2008-03-19 16:06:18 | atefile | | Good problem |
| 2008-04-01 02:18:52 | Derek | | Its pointless, I agree. And this isn't even a tactic!
|
| 2008-04-16 17:53:24 | BaShi | | |
| 2008-04-27 02:24:18 | darthsenior | | eas |
| 2008-05-23 12:45:08 | PinnedPiece | | Get more than a chance |
| 2008-05-26 02:19:04 | 7Delta2Niner | | |
| 2008-06-13 01:29:35 | RJHChess | | It is way too easy. Of course you have to find the obvious move, but that's not the point of tactics-you have to think long and hard to arrive at the conclusion that the obvious move is the correct one |
| 2008-07-16 10:52:35 | nicola | | Its too easy |
| 2008-07-16 10:52:50 | nicola | | Its too easy |
| 2008-07-28 22:39:26 | Blackstorm | | It seems to have a too high rating. Solutions is slightly intuitive |
| 2008-07-29 14:00:09 | bumbly | | |
| 2008-08-16 22:40:52 | chesschocolate | | Why is everyone complaining it's overrated? its the players that affect the rating, anyways!! |
| 2008-08-18 17:43:56 | MHentrop | | As often here: You are expecting a beautiful, tricky move and than it is a boring standardmove. But this hinders just guessing the problems solution. |
| 2008-09-26 12:09:45 | TheBlackKnight | | Too easy for its rating (1804!) When you tell the tactician the problem is tough and then it's like this, it's not clever - it's cheating. |
| 2008-10-02 12:58:08 | Svenja | | |
| 2008-10-20 18:50:44 | MichailTal | | |
| 2008-10-20 21:24:25 | Elroch | | just the natural move without any calculation |
| 2008-10-29 20:33:18 | smokeybear | | |
| 2008-11-19 04:24:06 | Jegigzem | | Very easy |
| 2008-12-22 16:19:05 | dani1012 | | |
| 2009-01-02 04:15:49 | TheGastropod | | It was so simple, I spent way too much time out of my life trying to find something better just in case it was a trap. =) |
| 2009-01-02 21:52:46 | nukteh | | |
| 2009-01-22 05:19:14 | tommycat1 | | EZ |
| 2009-01-22 05:19:47 | tommycat1 | | I spent like 2 sec !!!!!!!!!!!
|
| 2009-01-22 05:20:02 | tommycat1 | | Im a 1550
|
| 2009-01-22 05:26:47 | tommycat1 | |
*_* |
| 2009-01-26 11:23:04 | Eddy60 | | |
| 2009-02-04 18:39:38 | Gwynplaine | | nothing special about it. highly overrated. |
| 2009-02-05 04:05:18 | marque | | |
| 2009-02-11 13:58:28 | drjohn | | This is the only move on the board! A simple recapture! I guess the battery you get is the tactic. So much going on it took me 10 sec tho. |
| 2009-02-13 10:37:40 | benjamin99 | | |
| 2009-02-14 02:47:07 | macrozan | | |
| 2009-02-20 23:58:24 | Mazz | | |
| 2009-02-22 13:55:22 | malajskytygr | | |
| 2009-03-01 18:53:44 | Prometheus | | Not a tactical problem. You try to look for a combination and force yourself to just try something after 3 seconds because of the silly time contraints. And then there was nothing to find in the first place. |
| 2009-03-23 15:19:15 | lepolaputuki | | Of course this is a tactical problem. Three recaptures available, one doesn't lose the material back since it gains a tempo with an attack. (And even that's not obvious because of ...Bxe3. How many of these "easy" guys worked out how that defence is refuted?) |
| 2009-03-31 09:21:44 | UNCCHESS87 | | wow!!! 1820 really??? cmon |
| 2009-04-04 18:13:01 | dwnshi | | More like 1300 |
| 2009-04-21 15:07:06 | REANNA | | i found it easy , i am a 1203 |
| 2009-04-30 16:05:11 | hichamino | | nice move
|
| 2009-05-02 22:08:26 | Elizabeth | | Not bad. Fairly easy.
|
| 2009-05-17 04:40:57 | omsanti | | this not hard |
| 2009-05-24 06:03:43 | halbower | | |
| 2009-05-25 08:35:25 | estonia | | |
| 2009-06-03 23:31:24 | iggythegreat | | Easy.Simple.Boring. |
| 2009-06-26 19:16:39 | kanon8 | | IT'S VERY VERY EASY!!
|
| 2009-06-26 19:17:48 | kanon8 | | THIS PROBLEM HAVE GOT VERY MUCH RD |
| 2009-07-02 20:40:38 | Karpsparov | | You're all idiots who wish you were great Masters. This problem is difficult, and a good lesson. |
| 2009-07-07 16:49:33 | ash16 | | its soooooo dumb |
| 2009-07-09 01:52:28 | Hypercent777 | | way too easy-and I'm only 1300! |
| 2009-07-09 02:46:25 | peanut | | wow. thats all i can say, wow
|
| 2009-07-09 18:03:50 | DocB | | designed to make lose on time |
| 2009-07-24 19:44:27 | grom43 | | Black makes thematic sac, so it's not easy. White only just has enough time to counter the sac. Nice. |
| 2009-08-09 23:46:03 | Christo777 | | after 6. Qg3 in main line, what about 6. ... Bb8. 6. g3 seems better. What means the $18 evaluation ? |
| 2009-08-10 01:48:50 | Kenicht | | It is beautiful because of its apparent simplicity with so many underlying complications. It is dangerous to retake the wrong way, and advantageous to take the correct way. Black gets a couple of pawns for his knight, and though White gets a point up in that exchange, his knight's irrelevance to the theater of war on the Kingside is more glaring when referenced to the newly ventilated White castled position. Yet, if all the tactics are worked out for all the possible recaptures, return sacs, significant quiet moves, etc, then this is a subtle puzzle rather than an easy one. Yet how many have pretended that just because the move they picked was the "right move" that this meant that they fully understood both why it was the right move and why the other ones were wrong, or perhaps only not AS right? Not many of us, I would gather. |
| 2009-08-10 01:56:07 | Kenicht | | Chess, as life itself, is about quality, not merely quantity. What do YOU get out of it, not merely what is the numerical crunching average that is projected upon you by some normative standardized system. Was your gpa a 3.0 yet you had taken your stand more and earned a few professors who respected you a lot and a few who hated you just as much? Then that means more than a 4.0 with anonymity in at least some respects. If you got a lot out of your education such that you were personally enriched, then your 3.0 means more than a 4.0 of someone who just "tested well" and didn't really personally learn anything which would make him "educated". The same in life. What is 80 years of cynical misery compared to 50 of glorious joy? In chess, what is a good move made but not understood in the context of other moves as well as understood in and of itself to its furthest complexity? If a computer can make the same move without consciousness that you can make, what makes your move better is that you are actually conscious of making it and get something out of it. If all you get out is what you put in, and the most you put in is "Well, that looks good" and you just happen to get it right, whereas someone else can analyze the whole board and tell you not only that it "looks good" but that it IS good and tell you all the reasons why, but took somewhat longer than you, I'd say his move was better than yours or the computer's, though it took him longer. |
| 2009-08-13 11:36:07 | HateYou | | I agree with Kenicht, I liked it ! |
| 2009-08-20 00:50:30 | iggythegreat | | lllQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW099999999999888888888777777777777777777777777777777777777777444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444]]]]]]]]]]]]][[[[[[[[[[{{{{{{{{""""""""""""""""'''''''''';;;;;;;;;;;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW |
| 2009-08-20 00:54:00 | iggythegreat | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 2009-11-25 00:03:42 | michaelX | | Too easy. |
| 2009-12-30 21:49:33 | mykingislonely | | It's rated about 1850 now! |
| 2009-12-30 22:22:13 | chessNERD99 | | |
| 2010-05-08 13:18:44 | theKnife | | 3rr1k1/bp3ppp/p1b4q/3p1Q2/N7/1P1BP3/PB3RPP/4R1K1 b - - 0 2 |
| 2010-05-20 03:57:35 | warp9 | | |
see solution