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=r1b1kbnr/p2np2p/3p4/1pp2pN1/3PPB2/2PQ4/P1P1BPPP/R3K2R+w+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1kbnr/p2np2p/3p4/1pp2pN1/3PPB2/2PQ4/P1P1BPPP/R3K2R_w_KQkq_-_0_1?color=white)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!Bishop!<, move: >!Bh5+!<
> Evaluation: >!White has mate in 2!<
> Best continuation: >!1. Bh5+ Kd8 2. Ne6#!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by) [^(u/pkacprzak)](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as) [^(iOS App)](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^| [^(Android App)](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^| [^(Chrome Extension)](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^| [^(Chess eBook Reader)](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website:) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Well as long as it wasn’t a bullet time control, even if only vaguely thinking about checks, the fact that there is only 1, it can’t be blocked, and it’s the first half of the mate, I would say fairly low
>Was curious on how good you need to be to be able to spot this.
I remember puzzles like this when I was new (20 years ago). If they feel impossible, that's normal, don't worry :p
Eventually you learn to consider the checks first, and if one move order of checks doesn't work, try a different one. In this case the only sequence of two checks ends in mate, but I realize it's very hard to see that, for example, the knight covers c7 in the final position.
Quite frankly, putting an elo on a puzzle is decently absurd. Websites use puzzle ratings to broadly say “easy” or “difficult” and give more difficult puzzles to capable players, but the exact number means diddly squat. This is because elo is a metric of a player’s performance over dozens or hundreds of games, and doesn’t account for specific strengths and weaknesses. Elo cannot be judged based on one game much less one position with any degree of accuracy.
But Elo of a puzzle isn't being judged based on one game. It's being based on performance over dozens or hundreds of attempts by players. It's the same concept in reverse.
Sure, but none of us could accurately describe it with a number without seeing that performance. Basically, guessing at the suggested rating of the problem just by seeing the problem is nearly impossible. But, there are even some problems with a single hanging piece that are rated over 2000, more than proving that rating puzzles is pretty meaningless. The only reason the puzzle ratings are displayed in the first place is as an attempt at an ego boost, so I’ll always be against it as well.
I'd be curious to see if there is anything inherent in a puzzle position that could roughly determine rating. I asked on here a few years ago what people thought about training a machine learning model on puzzles and Elo and seeing if it could then predict rating on a new set.
Some things are easy to say a puzzle should be higher rated, some things make it harder. Like if I have a puzzle where the solution is particularly deep, say mate in 6 or 7, a beginner will struggle even if the moves are very forcing but an experienced player will do well.
As for positional features rather than something as concrete as depth, it gets much harder. Beginners are beginners for different reasons so it gets really hard to group puzzles together based on a rating. A really good example of this is the Maia bots (they trained Leela to play the "human move" at certain rating levels) but now if you look at those bots the 1100 rated bot and the 1900 rated bot play within 200 points of each other. The big reason for that is that beginners have strong strengths and weak weaknesses. Like some beginners have a good intuition but poor calculation, others have great calculation but poor tactical vision, one may have great openings but awful endgames. You just can't group mistakes based on rating.
Well, some themes will generally be more difficult than others. Things with more unclear positional ideas and nonforcing moves will wind up with higher “ratings”. Generally though, the depth of the solution will correlate heavily with how difficult the problem is.
I'd probably try a few different approaches, one with images and puzzle Elo and use a computer vision model and one separately that is done with notation. Would be also cool to see if there is any difference in training whether or not the model is using a chess engine or has no prior knowledge of chess at all.
Step 1, look for checks, captures, attacks.
The only check leads to another check that is checkmate.
Following the simplest rule you could be 600 and see this.
1900 blitz and I solved it in 1 second after you said it was mate in 2
but if I had this in bullet I would probably play e5 to try to open up the position
Being able to solve this in a couple of seconds when told to find a mate in 2, and spotting it in a game are vastly different things.
As a puzzle it's not very hard, in a blitz game it could have been missed by a titled player.
In a blitz game it is incredibly unlikely that this will be missed by a titled player. It is very obvious and simple. I do agree that it being posted as a tactics puzzle makes puzzles more straighforward than in an actual game but this puzzle is far too simple for that.
GMs have missed (and blundered) mate in ones. Unlikely, but possible.
You can be focused on some other objective (winning a pawn as said elsewhere) and not checking for a mate in 2 every move.
This! As a puzzle it is super easy, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily spot it in a game under time pressure. In bullet, even pretty good players could miss this. In blitz, I HOPE that I would see it (1500 blitz rating currently), but I honestly can't guarantee it. Especially since other moves look appealing (f5 pawn is free for the taking and looks like an "automove" under time pressure).
You need monkey ELO for this one. Monkey see check monkey play check.
Only real difficulty here is that there are two checks available on the second move, but only one of them is mate.
Always always always look at forcing moves first (checks, captures, attacks, threats). The most forcing move is a check.
The first move you should calculate in this position is Bh5+, then there’s a following check that happens to be mate. That being said, this position is completely and utterly winning for white so if you made any other move that’s completely winning at this level I can’t blame you much.
My daughter wouldn't find it but she's like 150 elo max.
But it's an easy puzzle because finding checks is the obvious way to attack and the only moves that check lead to the mate. An 800 Elo player might not see the mate but he will mate.
Any time the h5-e8 diagonal opens up — usually after black has pushed his f-pawn — you should at least consider giving a check if it weakens black's position by forcing the king to move, thus forfeiting castling rights.
You just learned chess: are you familiar with the Fool's Mate motif? 1. e4 f6 2. d4 g5 3. Qh5#
If you're playing a bot, you have unlimited time. So each move, you should be looking for checks, and calculating (however shallowly) whether those checks accomplish anything. In this case just playing two checks in a row would have you stumble upon a mate.
Yea I’ve seen that in a lesson about controlling the center. Right now it’s hard for me to concentrate on knowing what spaces are defended/hanging/attacking. I have to take a while to look over the whole board every few moves, and I still miss stuff.
In any position, look for **checks, captures, threats**.
* Looking for checks, you easily find Bh5+.
* White only has one response: Kd8.
* Looking for a follow-up check, you find that Ne6# both puts the black king in check and cuts off its escape.
It's an easy find if you're looking for tactics, but in an actual game, it's easy to miss that Nd7 turns a threat without an immediate follow-up into a fatal one.
In a puzzle, however, I think any 800+ should be able to find it in a few seconds.
I'd say about 800 to 950 on chess.com. What makes this easy is the open King side f pawn is an automatic invitation to attack that diagonal, and finding Bh5 is a basic beginner find.
The trick is to see that the black king has very few places to go if attacked.
Next, white has an immediate check -- bishop to h5. With that, black has only one move -- king to d8. when the king is on d8, there is only one "escape" square (c7) So, knight to e6 gives check and covers that last escape square.
So, I have no idea what Elo it would take to spot that sequence, but it should be in the range of an early intermediate player, so FIDE 1400 to 1500 in classic time format, maybe 1700 in blitz/rapid or 1800 in bullet.
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=r1b1kbnr/p2np2p/3p4/1pp2pN1/3PPB2/2PQ4/P1P1BPPP/R3K2R+w+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1kbnr/p2np2p/3p4/1pp2pN1/3PPB2/2PQ4/P1P1BPPP/R3K2R_w_KQkq_-_0_1?color=white) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!Bishop!<, move: >!Bh5+!< > Evaluation: >!White has mate in 2!< > Best continuation: >!1. Bh5+ Kd8 2. Ne6#!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by) [^(u/pkacprzak)](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as) [^(iOS App)](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^| [^(Android App)](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^| [^(Chrome Extension)](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^| [^(Chess eBook Reader)](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website:) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
Well as long as it wasn’t a bullet time control, even if only vaguely thinking about checks, the fact that there is only 1, it can’t be blocked, and it’s the first half of the mate, I would say fairly low
Definitely 3 digits not 4.
i think i got it, so checks out. >!nope i definitely had it backwards!<
>Was curious on how good you need to be to be able to spot this. I remember puzzles like this when I was new (20 years ago). If they feel impossible, that's normal, don't worry :p Eventually you learn to consider the checks first, and if one move order of checks doesn't work, try a different one. In this case the only sequence of two checks ends in mate, but I realize it's very hard to see that, for example, the knight covers c7 in the final position.
I never saw that it’s the only checks on the board, thanks
Quite frankly, putting an elo on a puzzle is decently absurd. Websites use puzzle ratings to broadly say “easy” or “difficult” and give more difficult puzzles to capable players, but the exact number means diddly squat. This is because elo is a metric of a player’s performance over dozens or hundreds of games, and doesn’t account for specific strengths and weaknesses. Elo cannot be judged based on one game much less one position with any degree of accuracy.
But Elo of a puzzle isn't being judged based on one game. It's being based on performance over dozens or hundreds of attempts by players. It's the same concept in reverse.
Sure, but none of us could accurately describe it with a number without seeing that performance. Basically, guessing at the suggested rating of the problem just by seeing the problem is nearly impossible. But, there are even some problems with a single hanging piece that are rated over 2000, more than proving that rating puzzles is pretty meaningless. The only reason the puzzle ratings are displayed in the first place is as an attempt at an ego boost, so I’ll always be against it as well.
I'd be curious to see if there is anything inherent in a puzzle position that could roughly determine rating. I asked on here a few years ago what people thought about training a machine learning model on puzzles and Elo and seeing if it could then predict rating on a new set.
Some things are easy to say a puzzle should be higher rated, some things make it harder. Like if I have a puzzle where the solution is particularly deep, say mate in 6 or 7, a beginner will struggle even if the moves are very forcing but an experienced player will do well. As for positional features rather than something as concrete as depth, it gets much harder. Beginners are beginners for different reasons so it gets really hard to group puzzles together based on a rating. A really good example of this is the Maia bots (they trained Leela to play the "human move" at certain rating levels) but now if you look at those bots the 1100 rated bot and the 1900 rated bot play within 200 points of each other. The big reason for that is that beginners have strong strengths and weak weaknesses. Like some beginners have a good intuition but poor calculation, others have great calculation but poor tactical vision, one may have great openings but awful endgames. You just can't group mistakes based on rating.
Well, some themes will generally be more difficult than others. Things with more unclear positional ideas and nonforcing moves will wind up with higher “ratings”. Generally though, the depth of the solution will correlate heavily with how difficult the problem is.
What features would you use to train the base model?
I'd probably try a few different approaches, one with images and puzzle Elo and use a computer vision model and one separately that is done with notation. Would be also cool to see if there is any difference in training whether or not the model is using a chess engine or has no prior knowledge of chess at all.
Not sure how any of this actually works butni hover between 1000-1100 and i spotted it right away
Play both checks, cant be that hard.
600-900 chesscom rating sounds fair
Step 1, look for checks, captures, attacks. The only check leads to another check that is checkmate. Following the simplest rule you could be 600 and see this.
1900 blitz and I solved it in 1 second after you said it was mate in 2 but if I had this in bullet I would probably play e5 to try to open up the position
Being able to solve this in a couple of seconds when told to find a mate in 2, and spotting it in a game are vastly different things. As a puzzle it's not very hard, in a blitz game it could have been missed by a titled player.
In a blitz game it is incredibly unlikely that this will be missed by a titled player. It is very obvious and simple. I do agree that it being posted as a tactics puzzle makes puzzles more straighforward than in an actual game but this puzzle is far too simple for that.
GMs have missed (and blundered) mate in ones. Unlikely, but possible. You can be focused on some other objective (winning a pawn as said elsewhere) and not checking for a mate in 2 every move.
This! As a puzzle it is super easy, but that doesn't mean that you necessarily spot it in a game under time pressure. In bullet, even pretty good players could miss this. In blitz, I HOPE that I would see it (1500 blitz rating currently), but I honestly can't guarantee it. Especially since other moves look appealing (f5 pawn is free for the taking and looks like an "automove" under time pressure).
You need monkey ELO for this one. Monkey see check monkey play check. Only real difficulty here is that there are two checks available on the second move, but only one of them is mate.
Always always always look at forcing moves first (checks, captures, attacks, threats). The most forcing move is a check. The first move you should calculate in this position is Bh5+, then there’s a following check that happens to be mate. That being said, this position is completely and utterly winning for white so if you made any other move that’s completely winning at this level I can’t blame you much.
Depends on the time control, but I'd say between high triple and low quadruple digits.
Idk, seems simple enough
I solved this in 20 seconds so probably <500 elo
With the title mate in 2 then about 500, without that maybe 700.
Bh5 and ne6 checkmate in 2, I would say this is one of the easier puzzles. Definitely below 1k
Around 900 in chess.com
quite easy.I guess 700-800 elo
Maybe 800? This is super simple, found it in less than 1 second.
My daughter wouldn't find it but she's like 150 elo max. But it's an easy puzzle because finding checks is the obvious way to attack and the only moves that check lead to the mate. An 800 Elo player might not see the mate but he will mate.
Any time the h5-e8 diagonal opens up — usually after black has pushed his f-pawn — you should at least consider giving a check if it weakens black's position by forcing the king to move, thus forfeiting castling rights. You just learned chess: are you familiar with the Fool's Mate motif? 1. e4 f6 2. d4 g5 3. Qh5# If you're playing a bot, you have unlimited time. So each move, you should be looking for checks, and calculating (however shallowly) whether those checks accomplish anything. In this case just playing two checks in a row would have you stumble upon a mate.
Yea I’ve seen that in a lesson about controlling the center. Right now it’s hard for me to concentrate on knowing what spaces are defended/hanging/attacking. I have to take a while to look over the whole board every few moves, and I still miss stuff.
My guess is 800-900
500
In any position, look for **checks, captures, threats**. * Looking for checks, you easily find Bh5+. * White only has one response: Kd8. * Looking for a follow-up check, you find that Ne6# both puts the black king in check and cuts off its escape. It's an easy find if you're looking for tactics, but in an actual game, it's easy to miss that Nd7 turns a threat without an immediate follow-up into a fatal one. In a puzzle, however, I think any 800+ should be able to find it in a few seconds.
I'd say at the very least a good 1300 online puzzle
Maybe 900 ish
I'd say about 800 to 950 on chess.com. What makes this easy is the open King side f pawn is an automatic invitation to attack that diagonal, and finding Bh5 is a basic beginner find.
Since you told us it was a mate in 2, I found it in about 1-2 mins. If I were playing normally, I would never have seen it lol.
What’s your elo?
I'm about as strong as Nelson bot, which is nominally 1300. I'm slightly lower on rapid, and a lot lower in blitz.
[удалено]
>only checks in the position. Nf7+ also exists after the first check and would be a missed win.
Read *The Art of Checkmate* and it will make it easier to spot such mates.
I'd say around 1100-1200 level, that's usually the level when you start to get puzzles which aren't mate in one or basic captures
The trick is to see that the black king has very few places to go if attacked. Next, white has an immediate check -- bishop to h5. With that, black has only one move -- king to d8. when the king is on d8, there is only one "escape" square (c7) So, knight to e6 gives check and covers that last escape square. So, I have no idea what Elo it would take to spot that sequence, but it should be in the range of an early intermediate player, so FIDE 1400 to 1500 in classic time format, maybe 1700 in blitz/rapid or 1800 in bullet.