After over 2 minutes of head-scratching, I found the idea of 28. ... Ne4.

Among other things, I completely missed the idea of following up the Pawn exchange with 30. ... Qb6+, as pointed out by <dzechiel>, which will leave Black up by 2 pieces for a Rook.

Material: Down N for R. The Black Pe6 has an obvious capture exf7+, discovering an attack by Re8 on Re1. The capture will further weaken the K-side dark squares and expose Kg8. Immediate capture leads a fork and win of Bd6, but the question is whether there is a better move.

Candidates (28…): exf2+, Ne4

28…exf2+ 29.Kxf2 Qb6+ 30.Bc5 [else, drop a B] Qxc5+ Qxc5 31.Nxc5

and Black has won a B. There is a better move, however.

28…Ne4 (threatening 29…Nxc3 and 29…exf7+ 30…fxe8=Q+ 31…Nxd6)

29.Qc7 [else, drop Bd6 with a R] exf7+ 30.K moves fxe8=Q

Hang on for a week and then you'll not regret it...! ;)

My try was 28...exf2+ 29 ♔xf2 ♘e4+ 30 ♖xe4 ♖xe4....not the best

You wrote: "(Who said, "when you've found a good move wait and look for a better one."?)"

Anyway for the record (my own record that is), here are my thoughts prior to looking at the solution:

"White is ahead in material (rook for a knight). After looking at this for a short while, the best move that I see is:

28 ...exf2+
29. Kxf2
really no other choice unless white wants to lose his e1 rook and give black a new queen.

29. ...Qb6+
Now white will lose the d6 bishop if it remains on that square (i.e., if the white king moves to escape check, or if white blocks the check with the f3 knight or with the queen). If white plays 30. Bc5 then black can either simplify by playing 30. ...Qxc5+ or take the bishop with the d7 knight (in the latter case the f6 knight is now protected from capture by the black queen). Either way the white bishop is lost. It might be easier (and safer) to simplify by trading queens if white moves the bishop to c5. On the other hand keeping the black queen on the board looks very menancing - white has to be careful to avoid dangerous knight forks (i.e., at e4) plus his king looks in danger if the black queen stays on the board, especially since black has a dark squared bishop while white loses his.

I am 90% certain that in a real game I would have played the ...exf2+, but ironically there is the possibility that I would have played ...Ne4 instead in a real OTB situation. Why? Well partly because of the "look for a better move" maxim, but more importantly (for me anyway) because I mistakenly convinced myself that ...exf2+ was the only first move. I convinced myself precisely because this was a puzzle. My "feeling" that there might be something more was a feeling that there was a better follow-up after ...exf2+ not a feeling that there was a different first move to consider.

What I should have done (always easier to see afterward btw) was to trust myself that I had seen all that was important in the ...exf2 sequence (therefore dispelling the "something more" feeling) and then looked at other first moves.

The "obvious" exf2 fails - a great antidote to all those "spotted it in an instant" posts we get on Saturdays and Sundays.

Interestingly, this was probably harder to spot as a puzzle than it would have been OTB. Black's two previous moves (26. ... e3 and 27. ... Rxc3) were clearly made to facilitate 28. ... Ne4 by getting rid of both white knights which were defending e4.

This means that black was following a short-term planned aimed at playing Ne4. By contrast, we get the position cold. I must confess that I spent rather too much time trying to make exf2 work, before looking for a better move because a Monday must be a one or two mover. Once you see Ne4, it all falls into place.

Although your intention of the post seems to be trolling I'd still like to react (especially because two people blindly agreed to it).

I agree with you with the solving time and the 'not telling anything new posts' like 'I solved in 41312ms'. Useless, just leave them, as the CG community doesn't really care whether someone actually solved it or not if they have nothing new to add. The only time I make such a post is when I did NOT make a puzzle and show a wrong continuation (which might be nice to analyse).

Black to move, <12...?> (H Bohm vs R Hernandez, 1979):

click for larger view

White to move, <32.?> (Capablanca vs B H Villegas, 1914):

click for larger view

<fruits are healthy...
eat them please...
bananas in pajamas...>
apples in dungarees

I care. I greatly enjoy Dzechiel's posts (and his alterego JohnLspouge ;) and MAJ's and TerryMcCracken's and all the other regular's posts. I don't go thru every variation every day but I've learned a great deal about chess here.

But it's certainly understandable that these long detailed discussions of complicated chess positions bore you... I think most people, most by far, agree with you.. Long discussions of chess? Snooz-o-rama -- why my own family finds the whole topic unbearably tedious and shout at me to shut up if I so much as mention chess... but the thing is, these sensible people completely avoid chess forums. It's as though they know that they'll find chess discussed here, and they stay away. Imagine.

I'm shocked. Shocked to find that there is chess discussion going on here.

At the other end of the scale, we have kibitzing that does not add much to the sum of human knowledge - even bordering on the offensive.

By the same token, there is huge variability in the way that we use the site. Some dip in for a quick workout on the puzzles and little more. Others devote hours to the site and delve deeply into the variations offered by others.