1. ## Polgar 638

I am wondering if this might be something universally known to the cognoscenti: In Laszlo Polgar's 5334 Chess Problems, number 638 seems to be given a wrong solution (638) 1.N×e6+ K×c3 2.Qd2#, ignoring 2....Kxb3; when the correct solution appears to be 1.Qe5, either K or Q x e5, 2. Ne2. It doesn't look like it could be a typo, because there are three non-nonsensical moves leading to a real pseudo-mate. I wonder if it could be a little trap to see if the reader is awake (or originally, if the three sisters were awake). Also, I should note that this is on a Chinese, likely non-official, download version, but which otherwise seems to be reliable. Another thing is, he doesn't really stick to the conventions of problem writing - not that I know anything much about those - doesn't exhaust all variations in analysis, doesn't bother about cooks. But this is a different thing. Just wondering if it's a thing he does from time to time, and everyone knows about it.

2. Originally Posted by nonevero
I am wondering if this might be something universally known to the cognoscenti: In Laszlo Polgar's 5334 Chess Problems, number 638 seems to be given a wrong solution (638) 1.N×e6+ K×c3 2.Qd2#, ignoring 2....Kxb3; when the correct solution appears to be 1.Qe5, either K or Q x e5, 2. Ne2. It doesn't look like it could be a typo, because there are three non-nonsensical moves leading to a real pseudo-mate. I wonder if it could be a little trap to see if the reader is awake (or originally, if the three sisters were awake). Also, I should note that this is on a Chinese, likely non-official, download version, but which otherwise seems to be reliable. Another thing is, he doesn't really stick to the conventions of problem writing - not that I know anything much about those - doesn't exhaust all variations in analysis, doesn't bother about cooks. But this is a different thing. Just wondering if it's a thing he does from time to time, and everyone knows about it.
If I could locate my copy I may be able to reply. Easy to lose when so tiny.

3. Originally Posted by nonevero
I am wondering if this might be something universally known to the cognoscenti: In Laszlo Polgar's 5334 Chess Problems, number 638 seems to be given a wrong solution (638) 1.N×e6+ K×c3 2.Qd2#, ignoring 2....Kxb3; when the correct solution appears to be 1.Qe5, either K or Q x e5, 2. Ne2. It doesn't look like it could be a typo, because there are three non-nonsensical moves leading to a real pseudo-mate. I wonder if it could be a little trap to see if the reader is awake (or originally, if the three sisters were awake). Also, I should note that this is on a Chinese, likely non-official, download version, but which otherwise seems to be reliable. Another thing is, he doesn't really stick to the conventions of problem writing - not that I know anything much about those - doesn't exhaust all variations in analysis, doesn't bother about cooks. But this is a different thing. Just wondering if it's a thing he does from time to time, and everyone knows about it.
In my copy Qe5 is given as the solution so this may well have been a mistake corrected in a later edition.

The position is below. Of course few in their right mind would play Qe5 in the event of achieving this improbable position, seeing that it gives away a Queen with check whereas Ne6 is a safe win (mate in five), but this is in a section devoted to mate in two.

638.jpg

4. Thanks Ian; makes sense.

5. Thanks Ian. That makes sense.
Antichrist: "tiny?" I first became aware of this compilation from my local library a few yeays ago. In unminiaturised form it is a monster, four or five kilos, a couple of bibles and a metropolitan phone book combined. I borrowed it once or twice, then someone from a branch in another town requested it. I found the online, Chinese version and downloaded it twice, so that I can open both, one to the next problem, one to the corresponding solution page.

6. Originally Posted by Ian Rout
In my copy Qe5 is given as the solution so this may well have been a mistake corrected in a later edition.

The position is below. Of course few in their right mind would play Qe5 in the event of achieving this improbable position, seeing that it gives away a Queen with check whereas Ne6 is a safe win (mate in five), but this is in a section devoted to mate in two.

638.jpg
Not sure how useful it is to solve such positions from a practical improvement perspective though. Its more like a challenge for problem solvers.

7. Originally Posted by nonevero
Thanks Ian. That makes sense.
Antichrist: "tiny?" I first became aware of this compilation from my local library a few yeays ago. In unminiaturised form it is a monster, four or five kilos, a couple of bibles and a metropolitan phone book combined. I borrowed it once or twice, then someone from a branch in another town requested it. I found the online, Chinese version and downloaded it twice, so that I can open both, one to the next problem, one to the corresponding solution page.
I know it is many kilos plus - I was making a joke. Sure it is in my basement if I check but previously was using Lloyd's problems - somehow preferred the layout or stories??? cant remember now.