Talk:Chess/Tactics Exercises

More the Better
The more positions we have the better. I put a few up that may not be very good but if we can put a lot up and if people are always adding more it would be very useful for all chess players. We can later organize them when we have more, like by difficulty or by theme, like discoveries in one section and so on. Tprev 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

number 1 is wrong: after d5 ... Bxc3+ bxc3 Ne7 and now the check at a4 would be harmless

Added and amended position 1 so that 1. d5 with a possible Qa4+ picking up the Bishop on b4 can now work. E5ricky 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

99% tactics?
I am by no means an expert, but this statement ("Chess is 99% Tactics") just seems to subjective and vague to feature. 84.1.190.175 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say it's 99% tactical? E5ricky 19:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chess is 99% Tactics" is a famous quote by Teichmann. It has been the basis of many discussions about chess and has even spawned rebuttal quotes such as "Chess is 99% calculation." from Soltis. --Kingpatzer (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Upside down
Positions 13/14 and 15 are upside down. Position require reversing. Done E5ricky 22:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Section "A Highly Tactical Position"
This has been completely removed twice now by 209.146.241.93. I see no reason to delete it. If this person wishes to take time to submit anything of better quality to replace it, then fine, but until such time as we have something better then it's of value to stay. E5ricky 19:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Exercise #2
I'm a rank amateur, but that also means I'm the intended audience of this section so I feel justified in speaking up. :) In exercise #2, if White plays 1. Rxd7+, what's to stop Black from playing 1...Kc8 to avoid the check and temporarily neutralize the White queen without losing any (further) pieces? --Orzechowskid (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

With Gnuchess vs Gnuchess, white did win after 18. move, began as you described. --80.222.84.35 (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer to this one isn't complete. White can win another piece after 1 ... Kc8; 2 Rd5 is a discovered check which wins a pawn (on e5).

I think this moves is currently being updated, but it now follows with a discovered check by Re7, black being forced to defence by Nd7, but then it is stated that Qe7#, but why would black K not make a retreating move? Walterdevries (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discovered check of Re7+ doesn't work. The king could retreat to b7, and you've been forced into an exchange that you may not like.  Also, black responses incorrectly indicated that you could force mate on this problem, which was incorrect.  In any case, Exercise 2 really could be described much better. --Sigma 7 (discuss • contribs) 06:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The other issues with this problem aside, could someone explain to me what the benefit of Step 4: Rh5 is? Will it not immediately be followed by Nxh5, Bxh5 for a net loss of material? I don't see the point in moving Rh5 when you could Rg5 and potentially pick up another free pawn depending on black's response. Thanks. -116.193.159.45 (discuss) 20:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In move 3, what prevents Black from doing Bb4+ and taking the initiative? 213.57.218.214 (discuss) 18:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Exercise #3
A different person here but nonetheless an amateur. On exercise #3 what's to stop black from moving his pawn forward from C7 to C5, thus blocking checkmate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.53.87 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 March 2009.
 * It's White to move and Black is forced to respond to check and hence never gets a chance to play pawn c7 to c5. SunCreator (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of #3 is not to checkmate but to win material (the knight).

A different person yet. I have to disagree with SunCreator's response. Yes, it is white to move. But the succession would go:

1.Rf8+ Rxf8

2.Rxf8+ Ka7

3.Bxe3 and THEN 3... c5. What prevents this is that white's pawn on d5 is passed "en passant" and can therefore take black's pawn. But black still has the pawn on the b-file that can better block the bishop's check to begin with. Thus the King escapes checkmate. But white still gains a material advantage.

Exercise #4
I really have to disagree with the logic in exercise 4. Given that the Queen moves to f4, I cannot see black moving his eFile knight to d7! A much more probable move would be moving that same knight to g6, thus threatening white's queen.

Were I white faced with the situation given in Ex 4, (I am a base amateur), I would move my rook to f5 with the hope of backing it up with the other rook to f1 in the next move.

I disagree as well, I would move my queen to h4, then bishop to f6 which forks the black queen and rook, (if e Knight is now protecting f knight, just threaten e Knight with other bishop).

I offered a more thorough explanation consisting of the above mentioned Rf5. (1. Rf5 Ned7 2. Qf2 Rg8 3. e5 Rxg5 4. exd6 Rxf5 5. dxe7 Rxf2 6. Kxf2).

Exercise #9
I guess I really have to play the contrarian with you. In this case, your computer was correct. I also initially saw the strategy you did. But that approach allows the king to escape checkmate. The following sequence from that on the board:

1.Rh7+ Kg8

2.Rcg7+ Kf8

3.Bd6+

This was your strategy. Now you see the next move on the part of the e8 rook:

3... Re7 then:

4.Bxe7+ Ke8 Now, it can be either rook, but I'll select the h7

5.Rh8+ Kd7

and from there the King is able to slip away into pawn protection.

This doesn't happen with the computer version.


 * 5.Bd6 --79.216.228.177 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Exercise #18
You don't seem to consider this possibility:

1.Qh5+ Ke6

2.Re3+ Kd7

and now white's rook has to consider the threat imposed by black's rook on e8. Certainly changes the game and undermines white's checkmate strategy. Variations of white's response to 1...Ke6 results in the same escape.

FEN notation for the puzzles
As people may want to analyse/play out these puzzles via their favourite chess program, here are the puzzles in FEN notation: r2qk2r/pbp2ppp/1pnp1n2/8/1bPP4/2N2N2/PP2BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 1 r2k1b1r/2pn1Bpp/pp2Qn2/4p3/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/3RK2R w K - 0 1 1k5r/1pp5/p2p4/3P2B1/5R1P/4n3/PPP3r1/1K3R2 w - - 0 1 1k5r/1pp1qp2/p2r1n2/4n1Bp/2PpP3/P2P2QP/P3B1P1/R4RK1 w - - 0 1 r4rk1/pp4p1/2p2pp1/2P1Nq2/1P1P4/2K1P3/P7/R2Q4 w - - 0 1 4r1k1/1p1r1pp1/p3b3/2pp2BN/8/5PP1/P1N2KB1/R6R w - - 0 1 r1bq1r1k/1p4p1/p2pP1p1/2b5/2Q1PP2/NP3R2/PB4PP/R6K w - - 0 1 4Qrk1/1p4p1/p2p2p1/2b5/4P3/NPB4R/P5PP/R6K w - - 0 1 4r2k/2R3R1/1p3p2/2pp1p1p/p4B2/7P/PP4PK/4r3 w - - 0 1 r1b2rk1/ppp1n1pp/8/3Pp2q/N1P1P1n1/6bP/PP4B1/R1BQ1R1K w - - 0 1 r3rk2/p1pq1p1p/n2p2pN/1p1Pb1BN/2n5/5Q2/PP3PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 1 2r3k1/b5pp/p2N4/1p1N3q/1P4b1/3QP3/1PP3PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1 r2r2k1/1p2bppp/4q3/p3n3/5P2/N1PbP1Q1/1B4PP/R3K2R b K - 0 1 1k1r2r1/p1p4p/1p6/1Q2p3/P4b2/2P3Bq/1P3P1P/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1 r3k2r/p1p3p1/1p1q1p1p/3bN3/5R1Q/BP2b3/K1P3PP/3R4 b kq - 0 1 1rr1n1k1/4p2p/p2p2p1/qp1P2P1/3b4/P2BQP2/1PP5/2KR3R w - - 0 1 5rk1/r6p/p3P1p1/1p2R3/4n2P/2P4B/PP6/1K4R1 b - - 0 1 r3rq2/ppp2kbp/3p4/5pB1/6P1/3R4/PPP4Q/2K4R w - - 0 1 4r3/pppn1pk1/7R/3Pr3/2PQ3N/7P/PP3P2/5K2 w - - 0 1 I'm not sure if I got all the castles right, also in one puzzle there might be an en passant possibility. The moves I just set to "0 1" in everyone. If that's cool with everyone I'll edit these into the page.

Also, if anyone cares, here's a little perl script to get FEN notation out of the wikipedia diagrams: use strict; use warnings;
 * 1) !/usr/bin/env perl


 * 1) takes a board in this format:
 * 8 |rd|nd|bd|qd|kd|bd|nd|rd|=
 * 7 |pd|pd|pd|pd|pd|pd|pd|pd|=
 * 6 | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 * 5 | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 * 4 | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 * 3 | |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |=
 * 2 |pl|pl|pl|pl|pl|pl|pl|pl|=
 * 1 |rl|nl|bl|ql|kl|bl|nl|rl|=
 * 1) and turnes it into FEN notation.
 * 1) and turnes it into FEN notation.
 * 1) and turnes it into FEN notation.

my %trans = (   qd => 'q',    kd => 'k',    rd => 'r',    nd => 'n',    bd => 'b',    pd => 'p',

ql => 'Q', kl => 'K', rl => 'R', nl => 'N', bl => 'B', pl => 'P', );

my ($FEN, $blanks); while (my $line = <>) { $blanks = 0; chomp $line; $line =~ s/^\s* \d \s+ [|]//x; $line =~ s/[|]= \s*//x; # now the lines look like: "rd|nd|bd ... nd|rd" for my $piece (split /[|]/, $line) { if ($piece eq q{ }) { $blanks++; }       else { if ($blanks) { $FEN .= $blanks; $blanks = 0; }           $FEN .= $trans{$piece}; }   }    if ($blanks) { $FEN .= $blanks; }   $FEN .= '/'; }

$FEN =~ s{/$}{};

print $FEN; Though this is probably a stupid place to post this, I'm sorry.

Horrible
9. 1.Rh7+ Kg8 2.Rcg7+ Kf8 3.Bd6+ (Computer give the better 3.Bh6 ... 4.Rh8# is better and logical!) ...Re7 4.Bxe7+ (With mate following, this was what I saw and played. Bh6 is better but it might be to hard for all to find, both lead to mate)

Why is there illiterate parenthetical chitchat in the middle of this book? Are the authors retarded? This "book" is a pile of crap, badly written, with poor examples, badly analyzed. Any real chess book is better than this garbage.

Might want to include the line for 1. ...Kh8 in excerise 5
For completeness reasons, might as well put that in. It can be dealt with sililar to main line, but if you have...

if 2. ...Kg8, 3. Nh6+ wins the queen for a knight
 * 1) Qb3+  Kh8
 * 2) Nf7+

if 2. ...Kg7, if 3. ...Qh5, 4. Rxh5 (back to main variation) if 3. ...Kg8, 4. Nh6+ wins the queen for a knight
 * 1) Rh1+

Thieh (discuss • contribs) 00:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Excerise #18
What is preventing Black from doing
 * 1) Qh5+ Ke6
 * 2) gxf5+ (or Re1+) Kd7

and game goes on?

Thieh (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Excercise #11
The Bxf6 line for excercise 11 is wrong; it has the black king moving to G8 while White has a knight at h6; then white proceeds to put their bishop on top of this knight. Is the intended starting posititon missing this knight? But then, why would the king move to begin with? Dijekjapen (discuss • contribs) 04:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Exercise #5
In the Alternative, why isn't there the Problem of 2. … Rf7, if 2. Nf7+ as it is advised ?

--Utonsal (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)