2024/07/10 DPA: "Leaping Towards The Action"
Black to move.
White's e Rook is undefended. Black's e Knight is also attacked twice but defended only once.
But 1. ... Nxg3. 2. Rxg3
White's Queen is also in a cramped position.
But if 1. ... Nxg3 2. Rxg3 Re5 3. Qd4
1. ... Nxg3 is necessary to remove the Bishop which contests e5.
Black could use the c Rook instead with 1. ... Rc5 but White still has 2. Qd4.
Aah, I see something: 1. ... Nf6. 2. Qd4 Rxe3. 3. Qxe3 Ng4+, Royal Fork.
Relatively better for White would be 2. Qxe6 fxe6 and at least White gets a Rook for the Queen.
.
The key was recognizing that Black could not trap the Queen or win the Rook but the Knight move attacked the Queen [yellow] and revealed an attack on the undefended Rook [red], which led to the subsequent Royal Fork [blue].
Also, this involves a BNM [Backward Knight Move], which is typically more difficult to see vs a forward move.
.
Some will object to White's "blunder" in not playing 2. Qxe6 or Rxe6: yes, while those moves are better, the point of the lesson is Black discovering the winning idea, not which losing line the opponent chooses subsequently.
Puzzles do not have to involve optimal moves for both sides every time [this other type of scenario is called a position analysis]; sub-optimals are allowed for the opponent in puzzles.
https://www.chess.com/blog/EnPassantFork/no-the-puzzle-is-not-wrong
I really dislike the notion of "Puzzles do not have to involve optimal moves for both sides every time [this other type of scenario is called a position analysis]; sub-optimals are allowed for the opponent in puzzles." Since the quality of a move is highly dependent on the opponent's reaction, many bad moves could become good moves if we simply assumed suboptimal play because the opponent missed the tactic to punish. A strange approach that IMO defeats the whole purpose of a puzzle. Regardless, Nf6 remains the best move.
Note that the solver still must play optimal moves. It's only the opponent that has the margin of playing sub-optimals.
So if Black played 1. ... Nxg3 and White responded with 2. Rd3, that would be a bad puzzle because the solver did not play the optimal move.
OTOH, if Black played the optimal 1. ... Nf6 and White responded with a sub-optimal like in the puzzle solution, that's fine because the opponent's response in no way affected the solver's ability to see 1. ... Nf6. It just means the solver needs to take into account sub-optimal moves as well as optimal ones. But that's no different than a real game, right? Our opponent won't always make optimal moves.
This is a subtle point that eludes many.
Anyways, this is just the way I understand the DP is constructed; I've never seen a rulebook detailing what's allowed and what's not allowed.
I really dislike the notion of "Puzzles do not have to involve optimal moves for both sides every time [this other type of scenario is called a position analysis]; sub-optimals are allowed for the opponent in puzzles." Since the quality of a move is highly dependent on the opponent's reaction, many bad moves could become good moves if we simply assumed suboptimal play because the opponent missed the tactic to punish. A strange approach that IMO defeats the whole purpose of a puzzle. Regardless, Nf6 remains the best move.
Lol
Guess Us noobs need to learn more to be able to solve that puzzle. 🤦🏻♀️