Talk:Plaskett's Puzzle

The study is flawed, as is well known
After 4...Kg4, the position may be a technical win for White but it is far from clear, and it's even possible (if not particlarly likely) that something has been missed and Black can somehow draw it. Whether or not it's a technical win isn't all that important because the composer had 4...Nf7+ in mind as the main line, with the zig-zagging bishop manoeuvre and eventual mate. The fact that 4...Kg4 is a much stronger defence and gives white no clear and obvious winning line is a serious flaw. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The puzzle position setup is probably incorrect, I think if we add a White pawn to h3 the starting position will be correct and allow the 14 move mate. I need time to run this on my computer.  Currently, in the position being used with perfect play on both sides mate take 39 moves.  IQ125 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If it interests you you are welcome to try things out with an engine, however the result of such research cannot be included in wikipedia. Only analysis published in reliable sources can be used. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * MaxBrowne hit the point. The puzzle says "White to play and win". Black has no choice for the first three moves. But for the fourth move, there is a choice, and the solution only covers 4... Nf7+. Moves 4.... Kg4 and 4.... c4+ for example are not covered. The puzzle solution must prove the suggested, "White to play and win", and this is not the case. Either "White to play and win" is correct, but then the flaw is, that this is not in the solution. Or it is incorrect; then the puzzle is not valid at all. Further, per my opinion, engine results regarding mate positions are valid. Some users can check them. But how to reference such engine results? Does somebody have a suggestion for this situation? Dlb (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The puzzle is often referred to as a position, the engines can't solve . As long it's not proven that the position is a win for White, this does not hold. Dlb (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Because of the link to the chessbase article we're able to include the claim that 4...Kg4 refutes the study as originally set. However doing your own home analysis, with or without an engine, is the very definition of original research and can't be used on wikipedia. The chessbase article is a good source and I'll incorporate some of that material into the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The ChessBase article does offer a correction along these lines from Roberto Balzan: add a White pawn on h2. Double sharp (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Mate in 34 or faster
PV of search by Stockfish 10 with full set of 7-piece Syzygy done at 2019-04-23 by me

[FEN "8/3P3k/n2K3p/2p3n1/1b4N1/2p1p1P1/8/3B4 w - - 0 1"] [SetUp "1"]

1. Nf6+ Kg7 2. Nh5+ Kg6 3. Bc2+ Kxh5 4. d8=Q Kg4 5. Qf6 Kxg3 6. Qe5+ Kf2 7. Qf4+ Ke2 8. Qg4+ Kf2 9. Bd1 c4+ 10. Kd5 Bf8 11. Qe2+ Kg1 12. Qxe3+ Kg2 13. Kxc4 Nc5 14. Qe2+ Kg3 15. Qg4+ Kf2 16. Qf4+ Ke1 17. Qxf8 Kxd1 18. Qxc5 c2 19. Kd3 c1=N+ 20. Ke3 Ne4 21. Qd5+ Kc2 22. Qxe4+ Kc3 23. Qd4+ Kb3 24. Qd1+ Kc4 25. Qxc1+ Kd5 26. Qh1+ Ke5 27. Qh2+ Kd5 28. Qxh6 Kc5 29. Ke4 Kc4 30. Qc6+ Kb3 31. Kd3 Kb4 32. Qb6+ Ka3 33. Kc3 Ka2 34. Qb2# 1-0

Aloril (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Mate in 32 or faster
[FEN "8/3P3k/n2K3p/2p3n1/1b4N1/2p1p1P1/8/3B4 w - - 0 1"] [SetUp "1"] 1.Nf6+ Kg7 2.Nh5+ Kg6 3.Bc2+ Kxh5 4.d8=Q Kg4 5.Qf6 Kxg3 6.Qe5+ Kf2 7.Qf4+ Ke2 8.Qg4+ Kf2 9.Bd1 c4+ 10.Kd5 Bc5 11.Qxc4 Nb4+ 12.Kxc5 c2 13.Qe2+ Kg1 14.Qxe3+ Kg2 15.Qe2+ Kg3 16.Bxc2 Nxc2 17.Qxc2 Kf4 18.Qe2 h5 19.Qxh5 Ne4+ 20.Kd4 Ng5 21.Qh2+ Kg4 22.Qb8 Nf3+ 23.Ke3 Nh4 24.Qf4+ Kh5 25.Ke4 Ng6 26.Qg3 Kh6 27.Kf5 Ne7+ 28.Ke6 Nd5 29.Kxd5 Kh7 30.Ke6 Kh8 31.Kf6 Kh7 32.Qg7# 1-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desha123456 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can't say I'm very keen at all about all the computer stuff in the lead
Tha article is supposed to be about the study, not some youtuber running his engine on some website or other. I think we should lose that whole paragraph. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. The comment on White's 3rd move says that it is difficult for most engines to find, but this is not supported by a citation of any kind.  If the youtube video by agadmator could be used to support this claim, it might be worth citing.  But the following sentence, about Stockfish analysis in 2022, definitely violates all the Wikipedia rules. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The statement about 3.Bc2+ being difficult for engines to find (it still is) was taken from the chessbase article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Then you don't need agadmator, OK to get rid of that.  Maybe make it a little clearer that the solution is sourced to the chessbase article?  (Or am I just being dense.) Bruce leverett (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that statement could be directly cited to chessbase. But the main point is I don't want to see wikipedia chess articles get overwhelmed by engine analysis, or references to engine analysis. (I don't mind it so much on the talk page, it could help us find RS's). The study was composed before engines became common or strong, so it should be presented in an anthropocentric manner. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)