The Brilliant Puzzle... Will you find the answer?

Guys, There's actually a BRILLIANT DEFENCIVE MOVE that saves the game...

Paste this position and the moves on the analysis board and see what's the top engine move before Queen Takes D4...

You suffer from enginitis. Don't worry, it's a pandemic so there are many to share your sorrow with. That an engine displays two moves on different lines is the result of its chosen presentation format. It does not imply that one move is better than another when both moves read: THIS IS THE ROAD TO AN OVERWHELMING VICTORY. That one move has a higher value is JUST A JOKE AMONG ENGINES. It's not for us humans, we don't get it. We play by the chess rules that say "the highest score you can get from the game is 1 point, irrespective of how you do it". Everything else is deception and illusion!

There is a better defense for white after 1...Nxd4 than what is in the PGN, but only enough to prolong the mate and certainly not enough to save the game.

How to copy and paste the puzzle to analyze

That is such a savage brilliant puzzle!!!!! Queen and knight sacrifices. Insane.

click on the options circled in the Original post.

How about an even better one with the sacrifice of a Queen and two Rooks.

Behold:

That is even more brilliant! The most brilliant puzzle of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Brilliant Puzzle: "Will you find the answer?"

Me: "Yeah no."

lol

You ought to know better but you are somewhat prejudiced by your hobby to find shortest long mates. In compositions the duration of a solution does not matter - unless it is stipulated. That is even more true for chess games. John Nunn advises against playing for shortest mates but taking the safe roads to a win - in a game. A prolonged solution always counts as a (rather serious) dual unless it is merely a circuit detour from the main line. Countless studies were destroyed because their short author solutions got no priority over long tablebase cooks and duals. On that scale a puzzle move scoring -10.0 is not better than one scoring -14.0 and a M+25 not better than M+28. They all score just 1 point on the score sheet. These established evaluations are most relevant for solving puzzles on chess.com. As it only accepts main lines without variations you can't allow puzzles which force you to calculate winning a queen over winning a R+B when both win comfortably. It violates the principle for a puzzle to be solvable. Btw, chess.com is aware of that. You will never find a puzzle like the current one in its puzzlebase as Martin Stahl has often assured me - though there are some ifs and buts about it.

Btw, counting (unstipulated) moves is totally enginitis. Humans focus on themes and ideas which is why we consider solution moves and defenses "better" when it forces opponents to find "harder" continuation moves! Different metric and exactly right. Soundness is a different dimension.

I was merely pointing out that the game wasn't "saved" by a better defense, and I just happened to mention that it is prolonged by a better defense, I'm sure that people such as the the OP and most people here aren't familiar with all the rules, stipulations, and the nuances of studies.

ok puzzle, first try

wow, nice

It is not a better defense as I attempted to explain since the metric for good and bad is completely different from what SF dishes up. This is also the problem with the new crop. Nothing here is about conventions for compositions at all, it is about the role that is assigned to engines as the substitute deity for the human experts of old. No one 30 years ago would ever think a second of taking someone's authority on that it is better to be totally destroyed in 30 moves than in 27 moves. Such a complete misconception could never exist before the onslaught of a machine incapable of appreciating the structure of puzzles and its function for human analysis and enjoyment. Perhaps one day the AI-algorithms will pass the Turing test for the whole puzzle business and perhaps sooner than we expect. But we're not even remotely there now and until that time we need to protect our beautiful designs against the corruption of human puzzle definitions by an insane device.

It is common to suggest that we can't expect these puzzlers to know about conventions, etcetera, etcetera. . Not true of course since almost all of these "prescriptions" are merely formalizations of our understanding of archetypal puzzling since the beginning of times. For instance anyone playing Chess or Go 2000 years ago would have to think and analyze and comment with a thorough understanding of what we now call "the Alpha-Beta minimax strategy for alternate move games". It's a core part of the puzzle archetype and anyone not knowing it or figuring it out himself will not know how to play a fighting game or interpret the data in the modern digital interface. Today's generation is losing that understanding. No joke. There are guys here creating puzzles where you should not enter the correct white moves but the moves which beat the unknown black replies pre-entered by the "puzzle maker" in the "puzzle interface". Reality_connection_terminated. The only remedy is to never to go along with the enginitis generation. They are on the suicide mission of replacing all workable concepts and systems with senseless blah blah text.

Guys, the brilliant defencive move against Knight takes D4 is...

BE3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bishop e3 brilliant!

ez

what ez?

no matter what white does, black has a crazy advantage.

DOSEN'T MATTER WHAT DEFENSIVE MOVE THERE IS!!!!

OK???