Proposing to expand puzzles’ possible types of scenario

To @OctoPinky, #20.

> Some of “strongest” puzzles seem to be aimed at preserving equality.

You really mean preserving equality—not reaching it from lost positions? If you haven’t confused those two things with each other, then it would be very interesting indeed. I wish to see that.

Well, strictly speaking it is not lost if there is some sequence of moves leading to equality... maybe it happens with strongest puzzles, as recognizing a position in which you have to fight for equality seems to be a difficult task.

If I can find an example and it is really so, I'll let you know.

To @OctoPinky, #22.

> Strictly speaking it is not lost if there is some sequence of moves leading to equality.

Absolutely! I dare say that I understand this idea fully and perfectly—it’s just my wording was ambiguous. By “reaching equality from lost positions” I meant “reaching equality from positions which were lost just before the opponent’s last move”.

words are a pain....

@Hott said in #23:
> Reaching equality from positions which were lost just before the opponent’s last move.

I think this is exactly that (from the "Equality" category, lichess.org/training/equality):

lichess.org/training/O7rk4

FWIW, I'm having a hard time understanding the solution even after looking at the engine...

according to SF the very starting position is equality, and position prior to that was losing for white.
the solution position, had decimal score (which I consider near equality, compared to the last swing, so equality from losing was accomplished by black blunder.. That theme might be side-to-move blind in its implementation.

I am not sure that this is bad. it is still the puzzle context, we might easily want to look back from the start position.. I am sure we all might do that.. no? at least after the solution. It was more like the job was making the potential equality that SF foresighted at puzzle start, into something materially visible for us. So if we had no positional intuition at all (well for evaluation assessment, not how we plan our tactics, those are also positional .. vague words! or variable meaning words to be precise!),
we would have gone from 2 pawns downs to something better.. whether it is equality, did you count?

black lost a queen, white a knight and a rook... sounds like knight + rook + 2 pawn = queen...

but if SF is the definitoin, yes. it seems a there is some wobble. or it does not matter if that was black that did the job for white.. before puzzle task.. does the last ply creating the puzzle matter for the theme experience worth?

@Hott

Great idea, I would love to have more expanded features for Puzzles. I'm a puzzle fanatic.

That said, I don't know if it's a problem with how Lichess is portraying your profile, but it shows you failed to solve 127 puzzles in a row between March 23rd and March 25th, 0-127. How much time do you spend doing puzzles? Were you doing this just to search for different types of puzzles? This just really threw me off, I was like what the heck.

To @DrBuzzworth, #27.

> It shows you failed to solve 127 puzzles in a row between March 23rd and March 25th, 0–127.

I had turned on unrated mode and then kept clicking “view the solution” right away each time to enable engine analysis, and recorded the engine evaluations of the very first position of the puzzle and of the position just before that. I didn’t attempt to solve the puzzles just to speed up the process and gather more data.

See the posts #15 and #16.

To @OctoPinky, #25.

> > Reaching equality from positions which were lost just before the opponent’s last move.
> I think this is exactly that (from the “Equality” category, lichess.org/training/equality): lichess.org/training/O7rk4

Yes, I knew that. By the way, it’s even explicitly stated in the category’s description: “Come back from a losing position, and secure a draw or a balanced position. (eval ≤ 200cp)”.

I should’ve phrased my original just-to-make-sure post (#21) like this:

> Didn’t you confuse “preserving equality” with “reaching equality”? Reaching equality is just what the “Equality” category is about and isn’t interesting, while preserving equality really is, as that would be an instance of puzzles which are not about taking advantage of an opponent’s blunder, but about surviving / resisting / defending / can’t decide which word fits best. Roughly one such puzzle in a random 200-puzzles sample (see #16)—that is why this would be important.

@Hott said in #29:
> can’t decide which word fits best.

Words are a pain XD, I got it now. I think.

You mean there is an equal position in which you are asked to find the move(s) that keep that balance.

I don't think there are many of these (it happens quite often in GM level games, so you could try to examine that games to find positions) but be aware that, forgetting previous moves, this is the same that "reaching equality".

ETA: Here, move 24 by Black is forced to keep equality, is this what you mean?



Or 51 by White: