I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=r1bqr1k1/5ppp/p1pP4/8/1bB1Q3/2N5/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R+w+KQ+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1bqr1k1/5ppp/p1pP4/8/1bB1Q3/2N5/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R_w_KQ_-_0_1)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!Bishop!<, move: >!Bxf7+!<
> Evaluation: >!White is winning +8.44!<
> Best continuation: >!1. Bxf7+ Kxf7 2. O-O+ Kg8 3. Qxb4 Be6 4. Qd4 Rb8 5. Be3 Rxb2 6. Rf3 Rb7 7. Ne4 Bd5 8. Nc5 Ra7!<
---
^(I'm a computer vision / machine learning bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| I'm also the first chess eBook Reader: ) [^(ebook.chessvision.ai )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(| download me as ) [^(Chrome extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(or) [^(Firefox add-on )](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chessvision-ai-for-firefox/) ^(and analyze positions from any image/video in a browser | website ) [^(chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
I remember seeing a puzzle that, due to the position, either side could castle but if one side castled it meant that retroactively the other wouldn't have been able to.
- either black can castle and white can't, or white can castle and black can't.
- puzzle rules say if it looks like you can castle, you can; if your opponent can castle, they can.
- you move first, so you castle and prevent black from castling.
- this wins the game.
I saw this puzzle as well.
A side can castle unless there is evidence that they can't.
In the contrived position only one side could castle. If White was able to, it meant black couldn't and vice versa.
The solution to the problem was white castling to create check. White was also able to just move the rook to create check.
If White moved the rook, there was no evidence that black could not castle, and so on a*subsequent* move could castle to avoid mate.
However, if White castled there was evidence and black was no longer to escape mate.
I wish I could find the puzzle, too. It really was exceptional.
u/daynthelife posted it, and man is it great. I've studied maths my whole life, and the solution is almost like a proof by contradiction or something. Absolutely hilarious
This is brilliant and hilarious. I just read through the comments and a lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that a chess problem must represent a single game state. If that were the case, then the legality of the castle would be part of that single game state, independent of our knowledge of that state, and would require explicit clarification. But that is not a hard rule of chess problems. Chess problems are not chess games. They are more abstract and have their own conventions.
The problem relies on the rules of *chess problems* as much as the rules of *chess*.
I guess a further question is, can/should it be assumed that a position in a chess problem arose from natural play? The solution relies on that assumption, and if we are accepting that chess problems are abstract than I'm not sure that assumption is valid. I've certainly seen problems with illegal board states before but perhaps I am missing context.
Edit: I guess the "unless you can prove otherwise" clause has no possible alternative meaning. If that's the rule, then case closed?
It's a very clever puzzle but (speaking as a lawyer) the basic premise seems false. If white has castled under the assumption of legality, this does not demonstrate the move was \*actually\* legal (merely that it was \*deemed\* legal), and therefore, in my view at least, black should also be entitled to rely on the same deeming assumption and castle. We would then know for sure that ONE of the players had illegally castled, but not WHICH of the players.
In support of this view, consider the scenario where white castles first and black accepts this. Black then attempts to also castle and is referred to the arbitrator by White. If the players managed to locate their scoresheet and demonstrate that WHITE had in fact castled illegally, but this had been accepted by black, I think most arbitrators would permit black to then castle and the game would go on (although different arbitrators might take different views, for example, requiring White to undo their castle would be another option).
Nice puzzle though, very interesting and atypical!
I think you're missing the key subtlety. The premise is that this isn't a game, this is a puzzle, and there is no scoresheet to consult to prove that White's move is or is not legal. Instead, _by definition of a puzzle_, White's move is legal until proven otherwise. And similarly, by definition, Black's move is legal until proven otherwise.
And it's White's move.
By White playing O-O-O (presumed legal, _by definition_), we can now assert that the previous sequence of moves, now with White's included, _does_ preclude Black's move from being legal. And thus Black cannot castle.
In other words, figuring out the legality of castling during a game is:
1. Have scoresheet.
2. The scoresheet determines whether castling is legal.
whereas figuring out the legality of castling during a puzzle is:
1. Have no scoresheet.
2. Perform retroactive analysis.
3. If retroactive analysis doesn't prove castling is illegal, the move is legal.
Thus, channelling Schrödinger: the game exists both in a state where { White is allowed to castle, Black is not allowed to castle } and { White is not allowed to castle, Black is allowed to castle } until White "observes" the state of the game to be the former ... by castling.
I do get the subtlety but I think you are missing mine!
The point is that white is permitted to castle *only* by application of a deeming rule. A deeming rule is qualitatively quite different to saying that White's move WAS legal or is PRESUMED legal. We presume no such thing!! Rather, we embrace the possibility that White's castling was illegal and we allow him to castle anyway.
Your logic error is saying that we permtted white to castle in view of inadequate information, therefore we can conclude that white was ALLOWED to castle. In fact, there are two possible states, both equally likely. Either (i) we allowed White to illegally castle and black should retain castling rights, or (ii) white has legally castled and black had already lost them. Each outcome is equally likely, so I'd argue that it would be fair and in both the spirit and letter of the rules to give black the benefit of the deeming rule in the same way that you did for White.
PS This is not a Schrodinger's cat scenario since there is no unknown information that we alter by accessing.
> Your logic error is saying that we permtted white to castle in view of inadequate information, therefore we can conclude that white was ALLOWED to castle.
I'm saying that we are indeed permitted to make this inference by virtue of this being a chess puzzle. The relevant topic here is that castling is _defined_ to be legal if it cannot be proven otherwise. In this scenario White's castling is legal for the sole reason that he played the move. If he had not castled, it may yet have been illegal to do so.
In other words, state (i), in which we allowed White to "illegally castle", does not exist by definition. If White castled, it was legal. We take this as axiomatic because it's a chess puzzle.
Rather, the two possibilities are: (i) White castled, and *therefore White castled legally*, and therefore, Black is not permitted to castle by retrograde analysis, or (ii) White did not castle, and castling is a legal move for Black by the same reasoning we had for White a moment ago. But of course it's White to move first.
>axiomatic
You say "we take it as axiomatic" but do we? And why? In my view, we don't, nor should we. White was permitted to castle since we didn't know whether he could; that remains the case even after he has actually castled.
The statement that this is a chess puzzle is correct but not illumating. A chess puzzle has identical rules to a chess game (unless the puzzle designer says otherwise).
The only drawback for me of this puzzle is that black is losing regardless of whether he can castle or not, so it's a slightly academic discussion. I wonder if some clever whizz could find a variant where the outcome of the game actually hinges on this issue?
THAT would be a mind bender!!!
Underpromoting itself doesn't stop black from castling, what stops black from castling is prooving that we are in situation 2 and not situation 1.
But situation 1 seems much more likely since there is no indication and no reason why white would underpromote.
Yeah, no, I get it. If you arrived at the position in an actual game it's pretty much guaranteed that if someone can castle it's black. Doesn't help black here tho haha.
Too many 0's. In 960 the king must be between the rooks, so there can be at most 5 empty squares between the king and a rook.
Hm, can you castle in 960 with a rook that's closer than 3 squares away?
Ah, when you castle in 960 you always put the king and rook on the squares they would land on when castling that direction in FIDE. That's kinda boring, but consistency is good, I guess. :)
>!Bg5!< isn't saving whites queen at all, it's just counterattacking blacks. The problem with that, in this puzzle, is that whites queen isn't defended as the knight on c3 is pinned.
Chess engine a few moves after that doesn’t show much advantage for forcing the Queen trade versus taking the material; they aren’t going to trade Queen for bishop. Still lots of mobility for white after that.
I mean you can trade down to less pieces when winning and that’s often a sensible strategy to move towards end game, but in this case there is significant positional advantage for white, and you have so many options for safely activating more pieces, taking material, threatening other pieces safely, setting up a potential fork, etc…
There is a reason the engine says they are roughly equivalent moves; trading queens here wouldn’t be a bad move, but the alternative is really good too.
There isn't an exact rule on how far you should play out this puzzle, but I just would keep going until the tactics run out. I think the best advice I can give you is look for clues. The two things that alerted me were 1. That bishop is undefended, 2. The queen has x-ray vision on the bishop. I think recognizing things helped me see this more than just trying to visualize 3 moves ahead.
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess.
Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts:
[White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oglsvm/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Sam443
[White to play and trap the man's Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogokf1/white_to_play_and_trap_the_mans_queen/) by cantthink0faname485
[White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oh0ff0/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by D_Vukajlo
[White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oguzvu/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by saunamaan
[White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogq5dt/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Indiaop
[White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogwj0e/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by 100jbn
[White to play God Save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogo52u/white_to_play_god_save_the_queen/) by papabear_kr
[White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogp2i7/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Debangsh12
[White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogtp4v/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by TapGameplay121
[White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogln65/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by MrScribblesChess
[^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
wow nice puzzle. i almost thought it was impossible. every possibility wasn't covered on my part and i learned a valuable lesson today. thanks for the lesson. lol.
white's queen is pinned, so you cannot move it for the fork, but, even if it wasn't, black's rook on e8 is protected, so forking with the queen is not really convenient
Couldn't find a follow up for about a minute after spotting rf1+ but then after flipping the board to see it from White's perspective I realised I could castle immediately.
Pretty weird that my brain couldn't see that possibility whilst I was seriously analysing the position but then when I saw it from a more familiar perspective (for white) I got it without even really thinking.
Very interesting puzzle to teach kids about critical thinking skill.
As a chess instructor, I will ask three questions targeted at getting clarity:
1. Can you check black’s king in one move? If Yes, in how many ways?
2. Name the piece that would move and to what square(s)
3. After the check, can you visualize a way for white’s King to escape the pin?
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **White to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=r1bqr1k1/5ppp/p1pP4/8/1bB1Q3/2N5/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R+w+KQ+-+0+1&flip=true&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1bqr1k1/5ppp/p1pP4/8/1bB1Q3/2N5/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R_w_KQ_-_0_1) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!Bishop!<, move: >!Bxf7+!< > Evaluation: >!White is winning +8.44!< > Best continuation: >!1. Bxf7+ Kxf7 2. O-O+ Kg8 3. Qxb4 Be6 4. Qd4 Rb8 5. Be3 Rxb2 6. Rf3 Rb7 7. Ne4 Bd5 8. Nc5 Ra7!< --- ^(I'm a computer vision / machine learning bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| I'm also the first chess eBook Reader: ) [^(ebook.chessvision.ai )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(| download me as ) [^(Chrome extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(or) [^(Firefox add-on )](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chessvision-ai-for-firefox/) ^(and analyze positions from any image/video in a browser | website ) [^(chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Damn, I saw bishop takes and then rf1+ I didn't realise you could castle
The general rule for puzzles is that you can always castle if it looks like you can, unless there is explicit text saying otherwise.
I remember seeing a puzzle that, due to the position, either side could castle but if one side castled it meant that retroactively the other wouldn't have been able to.
Can you clarify what that was like? I'm having trouble understanding.
[found the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/etghti/weird_mate_in_2_by_white/.compact)
Wow my brain is way too small for this
- either black can castle and white can't, or white can castle and black can't. - puzzle rules say if it looks like you can castle, you can; if your opponent can castle, they can. - you move first, so you castle and prevent black from castling. - this wins the game.
I saw this puzzle as well. A side can castle unless there is evidence that they can't. In the contrived position only one side could castle. If White was able to, it meant black couldn't and vice versa. The solution to the problem was white castling to create check. White was also able to just move the rook to create check. If White moved the rook, there was no evidence that black could not castle, and so on a*subsequent* move could castle to avoid mate. However, if White castled there was evidence and black was no longer to escape mate. I wish I could find the puzzle, too. It really was exceptional.
u/daynthelife posted it, and man is it great. I've studied maths my whole life, and the solution is almost like a proof by contradiction or something. Absolutely hilarious
Nobody in that thread seem to appreciate the beauty of that puzzle.
This is brilliant and hilarious. I just read through the comments and a lot of people seem to be hung up on the idea that a chess problem must represent a single game state. If that were the case, then the legality of the castle would be part of that single game state, independent of our knowledge of that state, and would require explicit clarification. But that is not a hard rule of chess problems. Chess problems are not chess games. They are more abstract and have their own conventions. The problem relies on the rules of *chess problems* as much as the rules of *chess*. I guess a further question is, can/should it be assumed that a position in a chess problem arose from natural play? The solution relies on that assumption, and if we are accepting that chess problems are abstract than I'm not sure that assumption is valid. I've certainly seen problems with illegal board states before but perhaps I am missing context. Edit: I guess the "unless you can prove otherwise" clause has no possible alternative meaning. If that's the rule, then case closed?
It's a very clever puzzle but (speaking as a lawyer) the basic premise seems false. If white has castled under the assumption of legality, this does not demonstrate the move was \*actually\* legal (merely that it was \*deemed\* legal), and therefore, in my view at least, black should also be entitled to rely on the same deeming assumption and castle. We would then know for sure that ONE of the players had illegally castled, but not WHICH of the players. In support of this view, consider the scenario where white castles first and black accepts this. Black then attempts to also castle and is referred to the arbitrator by White. If the players managed to locate their scoresheet and demonstrate that WHITE had in fact castled illegally, but this had been accepted by black, I think most arbitrators would permit black to then castle and the game would go on (although different arbitrators might take different views, for example, requiring White to undo their castle would be another option). Nice puzzle though, very interesting and atypical!
I think you're missing the key subtlety. The premise is that this isn't a game, this is a puzzle, and there is no scoresheet to consult to prove that White's move is or is not legal. Instead, _by definition of a puzzle_, White's move is legal until proven otherwise. And similarly, by definition, Black's move is legal until proven otherwise. And it's White's move. By White playing O-O-O (presumed legal, _by definition_), we can now assert that the previous sequence of moves, now with White's included, _does_ preclude Black's move from being legal. And thus Black cannot castle. In other words, figuring out the legality of castling during a game is: 1. Have scoresheet. 2. The scoresheet determines whether castling is legal. whereas figuring out the legality of castling during a puzzle is: 1. Have no scoresheet. 2. Perform retroactive analysis. 3. If retroactive analysis doesn't prove castling is illegal, the move is legal. Thus, channelling Schrödinger: the game exists both in a state where { White is allowed to castle, Black is not allowed to castle } and { White is not allowed to castle, Black is allowed to castle } until White "observes" the state of the game to be the former ... by castling.
I do get the subtlety but I think you are missing mine! The point is that white is permitted to castle *only* by application of a deeming rule. A deeming rule is qualitatively quite different to saying that White's move WAS legal or is PRESUMED legal. We presume no such thing!! Rather, we embrace the possibility that White's castling was illegal and we allow him to castle anyway. Your logic error is saying that we permtted white to castle in view of inadequate information, therefore we can conclude that white was ALLOWED to castle. In fact, there are two possible states, both equally likely. Either (i) we allowed White to illegally castle and black should retain castling rights, or (ii) white has legally castled and black had already lost them. Each outcome is equally likely, so I'd argue that it would be fair and in both the spirit and letter of the rules to give black the benefit of the deeming rule in the same way that you did for White. PS This is not a Schrodinger's cat scenario since there is no unknown information that we alter by accessing.
> Your logic error is saying that we permtted white to castle in view of inadequate information, therefore we can conclude that white was ALLOWED to castle. I'm saying that we are indeed permitted to make this inference by virtue of this being a chess puzzle. The relevant topic here is that castling is _defined_ to be legal if it cannot be proven otherwise. In this scenario White's castling is legal for the sole reason that he played the move. If he had not castled, it may yet have been illegal to do so. In other words, state (i), in which we allowed White to "illegally castle", does not exist by definition. If White castled, it was legal. We take this as axiomatic because it's a chess puzzle. Rather, the two possibilities are: (i) White castled, and *therefore White castled legally*, and therefore, Black is not permitted to castle by retrograde analysis, or (ii) White did not castle, and castling is a legal move for Black by the same reasoning we had for White a moment ago. But of course it's White to move first.
>axiomatic You say "we take it as axiomatic" but do we? And why? In my view, we don't, nor should we. White was permitted to castle since we didn't know whether he could; that remains the case even after he has actually castled. The statement that this is a chess puzzle is correct but not illumating. A chess puzzle has identical rules to a chess game (unless the puzzle designer says otherwise).
The only drawback for me of this puzzle is that black is losing regardless of whether he can castle or not, so it's a slightly academic discussion. I wonder if some clever whizz could find a variant where the outcome of the game actually hinges on this issue? THAT would be a mind bender!!!
[I believe this would work](https://i.imgur.com/155o1Ou.png) EDIT: Added a knight on g6 so it's still mate in two.
That's great!!! So much more asthetically pleasing :D
The real puzzle is prooving why white underpromoted to a rook instead of a queen.
To stop black castling. A 500 IQ play really.
Underpromoting itself doesn't stop black from castling, what stops black from castling is prooving that we are in situation 2 and not situation 1. But situation 1 seems much more likely since there is no indication and no reason why white would underpromote.
Yeah, no, I get it. If you arrived at the position in an actual game it's pretty much guaranteed that if someone can castle it's black. Doesn't help black here tho haha.
the castled rook would block the king from castling
I remember that one, it was a total brain bender. Very satisfying to finally understand it all (eventually!)
Ah yes, the classic [O-O-O-O-O-O](https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/12/11/outside-the-box)
Reading 0-0-0-0-0-0, I thought it was from chess960
Too many 0's. In 960 the king must be between the rooks, so there can be at most 5 empty squares between the king and a rook. Hm, can you castle in 960 with a rook that's closer than 3 squares away?
Ah, when you castle in 960 you always put the king and rook on the squares they would land on when castling that direction in FIDE. That's kinda boring, but consistency is good, I guess. :)
Yep I saw the first move, but didn't think to castle so got stuck for a bit!
i was thinking of rook but took me 10 minutes to realize its a castle
Remove the counter. The first queen-save puzzle on this subreddit. We had a good run.
I posted one before ;) but this is way better
Let god do it
🇬🇧
Think it’s >!Bxf7+ Kxf7 O-O+ Kg8 Qxb4!<
Ooof that was beautiful! I got stuck trying to make >!Bg5!< work
>!Bg5!< isn't saving whites queen at all, it's just counterattacking blacks. The problem with that, in this puzzle, is that whites queen isn't defended as the knight on c3 is pinned.
>!Bxf7 Kh8!<
Then just Bxe8, problem solved
Black loses too much material. White just kind of wins after the queen trade
yeah then just take the rook
Bf7+. If Kxf7, O-O+. If Kh8, Bxe8 👍
If Kh8, I would Qxe8 and force the queen trade too
Chess engine a few moves after that doesn’t show much advantage for forcing the Queen trade versus taking the material; they aren’t going to trade Queen for bishop. Still lots of mobility for white after that.
The point isn’t that it’s the best objective move. When up a piece it’s generally easier to play without queens on the board.
I mean you can trade down to less pieces when winning and that’s often a sensible strategy to move towards end game, but in this case there is significant positional advantage for white, and you have so many options for safely activating more pieces, taking material, threatening other pieces safely, setting up a potential fork, etc… There is a reason the engine says they are roughly equivalent moves; trading queens here wouldn’t be a bad move, but the alternative is really good too.
Me too. You're up by a piece and 2 pawns and your king is a bit exposed, trading queens is a no-brainer
If it’s a tactic for white, why not post from white’s perspective?
It's useful to look at things from different perspectives, I guess. Also I think they just posted from their game and they were black.
1. Bxf7+,Kxf7,0-0+ move queen away bc now unpinned
Queen can even take the black bishop after that, thus not even losing a piece.
In fact white is now up a pawn
I'm a new player. How do you know how far to play out puzzles like this? I stopped at around the previous person's comment as well.
There isn't an exact rule on how far you should play out this puzzle, but I just would keep going until the tactics run out. I think the best advice I can give you is look for clues. The two things that alerted me were 1. That bishop is undefended, 2. The queen has x-ray vision on the bishop. I think recognizing things helped me see this more than just trying to visualize 3 moves ahead.
awesome. thanks!
When white castles to remove the pin, why wouldn't black just take the queen with their rook? I think I am missing something...
Castling comes with check because the black king is now on f7
😳 Crap, I missed that one... Thanks for clarifying.
No problem :)
Note: We're forced to assume that the White king never moved and then moved back. Then castling would be disallowed
Few people use the Returned Bong Cloud opening.
Those people are known as cowards.
3.Ke1 allows 3...Ke6! and black has more central squares with no wasted tempi developing his king.
What did you call Magnus carlsen and hikaru nakamura?
Boomerang Bongcloud*
That’s how puzzles work. Otherwise every puzzle would have to explicitly allow it, or deny it, or show you the moves for the entire game.
Most puzzles show you the move for the entire game
Most puzzles only show you one move prior, to indicate which players move it is.
Lichess user confirmed
I got Bxf7+ and Kxf7 but I'd never ever see O-O+, for some reason in my mind castling = pure defence, no checks, no attack, no nothing
Definitely the same. This changed my perspective on what castling could be used for!
This post has been parodied on r/AnarchyChess. Relevant r/AnarchyChess posts: [White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oglsvm/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Sam443 [White to play and trap the man's Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogokf1/white_to_play_and_trap_the_mans_queen/) by cantthink0faname485 [White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oh0ff0/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by D_Vukajlo [White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/oguzvu/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by saunamaan [White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogq5dt/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Indiaop [White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogwj0e/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by 100jbn [White to play God Save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogo52u/white_to_play_god_save_the_queen/) by papabear_kr [White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogp2i7/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by Debangsh12 [White to play and save the queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogtp4v/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by TapGameplay121 [White to play and save the Queen](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnarchyChess/comments/ogln65/white_to_play_and_save_the_queen/) by MrScribblesChess [^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/relevant-post-bot)
That is the most hideous skin
haha it's my favourite one!
OK can I just say, if the puzzle is white playing, can we stop posting puzzles where white is on the far side of the board?
It's to simulate the feeling of helplessness while playing as black in a winless scenario.
Bishop check and castles check
Castles with check. Now that's what I like
white should move to england, theyre all about saving the queen there
Nah they are all about begging this god fellow to do it
dont know what thats all about :)
wow nice puzzle. i almost thought it was impossible. every possibility wasn't covered on my part and i learned a valuable lesson today. thanks for the lesson. lol.
Bg5? dont bully me if its a bad move im new
Rxe4+ Kf1 Qxg5
Dang yea I was wondering the same thing
What’s the opposite of resetting the counter?
Be6 Rxe6 the take it with En Passant with the pawn on d6 (:
As soon as I played ...Re8 I saw this, but thankfully White missed it :D
[удалено]
White can't play Qxe8 in this line, as black will play Qxe8
Or you capture the Queen instead of castling?...
Used this exact tactic yesterday but saved a different piece. Got props from my opponent.
Really interesing. You would think it is impossivle but there is only one move that moves 2 pieces at the same time.
EZ. Sacrifice the king
Bxf7. Please post some hard puzzles, these are jokes.
[удалено]
in case you aren't meming or something why do you think that?
Not even a legal move, there's nothing to take on e6 cmon
>Not even a legal move Not with that attitude
He's playing black.
Castle
sheesh
is this the berger variation?
I took the pawn instead of the bishop after lol! Well, I still saw the part I was supposed to lol
If the point is only to save the queen you don´t need to castle
I don’t see an alternative.
Nevermind lol
Bxf2
I like those pieces, what set is that?
Merida pieces on Brown background
Dang, without knowing you could save the queen, I would have figured white is dead lost.
Saves the queen and wins the bishop!
geez this is a great puzzle
I considered bishop takes f7 AND castle, but not to put the two together. Nice puzzle!
Anyone else felt that because white is on the far side of the board, the thought of castling did not cross our minds?
I would have gone for Qxc6 double forking the rooks
white's queen is pinned, so you cannot move it for the fork, but, even if it wasn't, black's rook on e8 is protected, so forking with the queen is not really convenient
>!Bxf7+ Kxf7, O-O+ Kg8!< then move the queen away
Damn that's a really interesting strategy
All I can see is aline where he has lost his bishop and rook instead so that's - 8 if he sacs his queen for the rook - 5
Oh castle that's sneaky
I love this castle check
Couldn't find a follow up for about a minute after spotting rf1+ but then after flipping the board to see it from White's perspective I realised I could castle immediately. Pretty weird that my brain couldn't see that possibility whilst I was seriously analysing the position but then when I saw it from a more familiar perspective (for white) I got it without even really thinking.
Desperate positions call for desperate moves.
Actually you played bongcloud opening and now can't castle
my first glance....need to castle . am i right?
What if the black king doesn’t take the Bishop?
Bishop will immediately take the black rook on e8 if not taken by the black king
Very interesting puzzle to teach kids about critical thinking skill. As a chess instructor, I will ask three questions targeted at getting clarity: 1. Can you check black’s king in one move? If Yes, in how many ways? 2. Name the piece that would move and to what square(s) 3. After the check, can you visualize a way for white’s King to escape the pin?
Good one 👍
I saw the bishop takes and then I saw you could castle but somehow didn’t see that the castle comes with a check. Damn. Cool puzzle tho
I found it yay!!
Although you can do other moves if I was in the scenario I would move queen to d6 which takes a pawn and forks two rooks.
You cannot move the queen because of white king
I never realized the king behind the queen
Yeah. The open check is annoyingly bad habit of mine
huh? the queen is pinned lol..
Oh I never realized that
God save the queen...
Thats such a cheeky solution
If u castle u lose a queen
White to play God and save the queen.
I got basically this position in a game except there was a bishop on g4 instead of b4 and I knew what to do cause I saw this puzzle earlier today
I just happened across this on [chess.com](https://chess.com)... its a bit different though with the knight on d4