lichess.org
Donate

Training puzzle 1186 improvement

Hey folk,

en.lichess.org/training/1186

I am unsure as to where this should be posted. As you all may know, in puzzles there are "Good moves", by making which you do not fail the puzzle, but still have to make a best move. In this puzzle stockfish agrees with me that Qxd5+ is a good alternative to Bxd5+, but it is marked as a mistake instead of "Good move" or even "Best move".

PS: It's not rage, just wanted to point out that this excercise could be improved. :)
I think Bxd5+ is the better move, because after Qxd5+ white can trade queens, and although you're still one piece up afterwards, you can't play Qxh3 anymore. So I think you better leave the queens on the board.
Or, if white continues Kh2 (to prevent Qxh3), black can still play Rf8 with threat of playing Rf2+ afterwards, without worrying about losing the pawn on e3. With the queens traded, this isn't possible anymore.
I think Qxd5 is perfectly fine. Why keep queens on the board when you can simplify into an easy winning endgame. But I've seen a number of such puzzles changing one won't fix the system. IMO every puzzle should be checked with stockfish, and everything thats above +3 or so should be "good move"
#2
the question is about position after Qe6 Qd3

#3 #4
I still don't buy it, Bxd5 doesn't give anything concrete right away. Qxh3 is not a threat, since after a check there is nothing better for white than playing Kh2 anyway. Judging on what I've seen in computer games so far, Bxd5 is likely to be stronger computer-wise simply because of a snowball effect - advantage normally only gets bigger and bigger, and keeping queens helps it.

However, as long as Bxd5 doesn't directly win a game and not necessarily even better than Qxd5, it's generally smarter thing to remove queens off the board.

#5 Interestingly enough both Qxd5 and Bxd5 are evaluated almost equally by lichess stockfish.

Updated: after a check it's -8.3 for Bxd5 and -7.5 for Qxd5.

Anyway, I guess I see that it's fairly normal thing. I presumed that these things can be fixed, but apparently it's just too much of a time sink.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.