The truth is you didn't solve the puzzle and you're just firing up Fritz and posting its analysis and making assessments on the position after the fact.

The reality is that some of us clearly found Khalifman's idea and recognized that it is extremely positionally valuable.

As I said in the preface to my solution, this puzzle is one of those that doesn't lend itself too well to pure calculation: Of course, some is required to ensure that 24. b4! is not a blunder; yet with this recognized, the important thing is to recognize that positionally one has many practical trumps available to oneself to play for the win.

I found Khalifman's winning idea and winning motif, therefore this is sufficient to claim 'finding the win' and to claim the full point for solving today.

Coupled with this, in conclusion, to expect your fellow kibitzers to solve such a puzzle in full from top to bottom with all variations laid out in a silver platter, is not only misguided but also extremely hypocritical from you - someone who didn't even solve the puzzle.

a) Hi rilkefan, I actually did read what he wrote, and I quote:

"Several kibitzers claim they have found a win, but they have yet to post a winning line."

I already stated that its fair enough to claim the full point for today if you found the correctness in Khalifman's idea and made that as your solution today. So therefore, on this charge, you are wrong as I did read what Pawnandtwo wrote.

b) Khalifman's 24. b4! is not only the GM continuation, but one which assists in establishing truthfully that White has a winning edge - if not in silicon terms than on human terms. If there is more truth in the position, then I encourage you and others to continue firing up the engines - I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is people who don't have the courage to provide a solution to the puzzle and then, in essence, criticize their fellow kibitzers for not finding a winning line. This is ludicrous and clearly something which misses the point of Khalifman's 24. b4! - winning lines are not as important as noting that the resulting position after the Q-sac gives White excellent practical winning chances based on advantageous positional trumps.

c) Seeing as how you have assumed the latter, and I have clearly shown to you that I'm all for finding the truth in the position, I will correctly disregard the rest of your note - as I worked hard on this puzzle and solved it! Nothing else matters!

In this puzzle position, white had available two very strong promising moves, both involving the sacrifice of his queen, 24.b4! and 24.Ra1!. However, if black is able to find the best defense, there may be no winning solution available.

I agree that I did not solve this puzzle, but it is not true that I did not post my thoughts regarding the puzzle solution. I had given my opinion on the puzzle solution, regarding obtaining the passed pawns, and occupying the a-file by playing my rook 24.Ra1. It was certainly not a complete solution, but I was happy to see computer analysis confirming that white has a dangerous attack in this line of play.

I said A or B. Not A doesn't make me wrong - that's just elementary logic.

"if you found the correctness in Khalifman's idea"

As far as I know, no one can prove the idea, which is as far as I can tell is itself just patzer level, is correct. It's a good practical chance, certainly. It also risks a loss. Saying it's a "winning edge" [a claim you contradict later when it's not needed for your local argument], even just in "human terms", isn't correct as far as I can tell, since black appears to be ok quite deep into the position playing moves I considered when looking at the puzzle casually.

<What I do have a problem with is people who don't have the courage to provide a solution to the puzzle and then, in essence, criticize their fellow kibitzers for not finding a winning line.>

You're flat wrong about the commenter in question - and your claim here is in my view silly. If X says, "I didn't get it, but Y says there's a win but doesn't demonstrate that", then too bad for you if Y didn't demonstrate a win.

I've been looking for a while, but I really don't see anything

Lets just check.

-------------

A queen sac indeed, but I would never foresee this all.

I agree with you that this puzzle position was not the best for solving. It is the second time CG did that this week - the other being the Zukertort puzzle they posted in the middle of the week.

In this regard, I know that when I say something, it is coming in the interest of establishing the objective truth; so without any further ado, let's start:

<rilkefan: I said A or B. Not A doesn't make me wrong - that's just elementary logic.>

You obviously didn't comprehend my reply to you, I stated that I did read Pawn and Two's post, your point 'A' and that I am all for finding the truth in the position, when you had assumed that I wasn't interested in that (your point 'B') - therefore in this case, you are wrong whether your logic be less than elementary, elementary, or more than elementary.

<rilkefan: "if you found the correctness in Khalifman's idea"

As far as I know, no one can prove the idea, which is as far as I can tell is itself just patzer level, is correct. It's a good practical chance, certainly. It also risks a loss.>

The correctness in the idea is that it is an excellent practical try to win the game. As for it risking a loss, well, that's what makes a sacrifice so attract most of the time; that the sacrificer risks losing the game, if his attack/judgement fails, to create winning chances - I'm glad you stated it, but it's already understood.

<rilkefan: Saying it's a "winning edge" [a claim you contradict later when it's not needed for your local argument], even just in "human terms", isn't correct as far as I can tell, since black appears to be ok quite deep into the position playing moves I considered when looking at the puzzle casually.>

You're silly.

Once again, it is clear that the demonstration of a win in this position reside moreso in the practical/positional trumps inherent in White's position after the Q-sac. For someone who didn't even solve the puzzle to say "many people have claimed to have found a win, but haven't demonstrated a winning line" in a position that doesn't lend itself well to finding a concrete winning line is in my opinion, most definitely misguided - I respect your right to disagree or agree, but I stick by my principles on this matter.

Furthermore, this puzzle may not have been the best puzzle of all time; but by the same token, it is interesting that on the Zukertort-Englisch puzzle earlier this week, I was the one to state that it was a bad puzzle, this said, many people (including myself) found Zukertort's Qb5 idea. I simply looked deeper into the position and realized that what many other kibitzers had not noted is that that the a-pawn versus N battle did not lead to a conclusive win - and note that I said "I looked deeper" and certainly not Stockfish, nor Fritz. This said, I didn't go and say "80% of the people here have claimed to find the win, but haven't provided a winning line." No, that's because I understand that it is a puzzle position and that people did solve the puzzle correctly even if they didn't find a forced win after the flurry of tactics. The same can be said for people like me that solved this GM Khalifman puzzle correctly, but didn't beat/match the computers in finding the absolute best defense for Black. On a human level though, we matched GM Khalifman's action taken in the position and therefore netted the full point for solving the puzzle correctly - which required a good tactical and positional assessment! Whether there is a win there after the fact is aside the point; although, I clearly applaud all efforts, including my own, to find the win with or without computer assistance.

<The entirety of the comment of yours I responded to was off-base, strawman, and intemperate. I hope you read <Pawn And Two>'s sensible and civil reply above and feel a bit ashamed of your initial reply.>

You're off-base, you're strawman and you're intemperate. I do appreciate Pawn and Two's civil reply. As for shame, I don't feel ashamed to be on the side of hard work and truth.

Facts not in evidence.

<I stated that I did read Pawn and Two's post>

"Read" usually means "understand" in context.

<your point 'A' and that I am all for finding the truth in the position>

See above (and above). An even position is not well-described as being winning without clear qualification, just as an effective swindle attempt is not usually considered the subject of a good puzzle without comment. <Pawn and Two> pointed that out, and you reacted like you'd been depantsed.

It is my responsibility to uphold the objective truth, whether it is liked or not.

White had to see that the bishop would never be active, and that the black rook had no way of getting unto an active square.

<Pawn and Two> displayed greater candour than you in noting that he did not solve the puzzle, which is by no means a simple one.

<....The reality is that some of us clearly found Khalifman's idea and recognized that it is extremely positionally valuable....>

It is, in my mind, aesthetically pleasing and worthwhile.

<....I found Khalifman's winning idea and winning motif, therefore this is sufficient to claim 'finding the win' and to claim the full point for solving today....>

Yawn.

Take your bows from that imaginary audience.

<....Coupled with this, in conclusion, to expect your fellow kibitzers to solve such a puzzle in full from top to bottom with all variations laid out in a silver platter, is not only misguided but also extremely hypocritical from you - someone who didn't even solve the puzzle.>

The hypocrisy here has been displayed by one poster--and it is not <Pawn and Two>.