So recently I've been doing training puzzles and more often than I'd like I try to play a checkmate that's not the most optimal one and instead of getting a "Good Move but you can do better" I get a blatant "Puzzle Failed". I'd appreciate if the training puzzle got better "secondary checkmate" recognition.
Example:
Way the computer wanted.
http://en.lichess.org/x6rWX2JmFloVWay I tried to do it.
http://en.lichess.org/7K3QbRn1fjWe This is common with me also..................
I don't think this needs to be changed. If you missed the quickest checkmate sequence in a real game then sometimes the moves are not quite forced and so you can end up with a draw, or worse instead of a win. I would even go as far as to say that there should be no 'good move' detection at all. It's too lenient a system in my opinion
it's not because you missed a sequence, but the check mate f6# in one move.
I played a 2500 puzzle a couple days ago, where after failing I checked with an engine, and the engine liked my move better by about 10 centipawns at depth 20 (it was a desperado to get one pawn and a rook for a knight instead of just taking the rook for the knight). So I think better good move labelling is needed, there must be some way to crowd source this. Another thing, is when you do get the "good move but you can do better" and then your next try fails the puzzle it is very frustrating, I don't know what to suggest for this though, since if you play a losing move you should fail but still.
Yeah. The engine here accepts only the moves which have been programmed into it.............It does not support other moves.
