The answer, I think, is that today's position is a little shy. She's a demure librarian wearing trousers, sensible shoes and a buttoned-up blouse. In other words, it looks like there is little chance of mate in the near future.

By contrast mating puzzles usually advertise their availability. We are talking hyper-short skirts, vertiginous high heels and cleavages that you could park your bicycle in. We can normally spot a mating puzzle because the black king is stalemated, his pawn cover is shattered and we have lots of heavy pieces nearby.

But not today. There are no queens and white's rook is a long way from the action. The only attacking pieces we have are a knight and a bishop, which on their own are never enough to deliver mate. Black's king is surrounded by defenders and he isn't stalemated. It all looks very safe. All is safely buttoned up and, although you can't see it, you just know that she is wearing sensible, unexciting and capacious white undergarments about her nether regions.

And that, I think, is why this puzzle could be hard to spot.

But even librarians can have hidden wells of passion. She may be encased in tweed like a medieval knight but for all we know the aforesaid undergarments might be racy little red and black wispy strappings from Agent Provocateur.

So how do you seduce a librarian? There are I think, two approaches.

The first is to ignore the outward trappings of respectability ask her out anyway. As <Patriot> often reminds us, we should examine every check and capture, even if we don't know where it will lead. So from the starting position 28. Nf6+ and 28. Nxd6+ have to be examined. And having looked at 28. Nf6+ it is only a small step to look at 29. Bh6+...

The other approach is to look for the deeply hidden signs of passion. She may be a librarian but did you notice that she is wearing flame red nail polish and the book in the wicker basket of her bicycle is Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or, as some wags would have it, Lady Loverly's Chatter?

The chess equivalent of this is to use pattern recognition to spot that there is something interesting in the position. In the starting position we have an empty fianchetto with an attacking bishop and knight nearby. And that ought to remind us of this fun mate:

click for larger view

Remembering that position should give us a clue that mate could follow if we could get the right combination of bishop and knight into the fianchetto holes at f6 and h6. And where better to start this than by 28. Nf6+?

*** as far as I can tell, after 27. Ne4! black is lost *** >

Straight away I see a two-move mate: 28. Nf6+ Kf8 29. Bh6 mate.

Simple as that. A check on d6, for example, may be tempting for material reasons -- but it doesn't restrict the black king the way that Nf6+ does.

Perhaps a different frame of mind might be useful. On Mondays and most Tuesdays, (and even some Wednesdays and Thursdays) you can usually dispense with the idea of trying to win material. Check mate is the only game in town. Especially on Mondays, if it's not mate in 2 or 3, or winning the other player's queen,or something really big like that, keep on looking. If you believe there must be a mate in there somewhere, you're more likely to find it.

<fyad reject> <Domdaniel> gave you excellent advice. It could be that you are not familiar with the concept that squares, not just pieces, come under attack. The knight on f6 not only checks/attacks the king, but also attacks d7 and g8. The king has only 1 square to go, f8. He's just about stalemated so Bh6 is mate.

Another point is you stopped analyzing too early. You saw Nf6+ and didn't follow it through with another check, which happens to be mate.

I mentioned a long time ago that most combinations are like a chain, where each link is a check, capture, or threat--one move after the other until you win decisive material or checkmate. It's important to follow those links to see what happens. When you reach the end of the chain and it's not mate, it's time to see who is better. I'm not sure anyone has ever explained it this way, but that's exactly how I perceive it.

I bring this up because the Times recently replaced their long time columnist, Jack Peters, John A Peters with a syndicated columnist.

For those interested, here's a link to a blog that discusses that shortsighted decision of the Times.

Well put. <Jim> makes a similar point. Crafty EGT link for winning practice:

click for larger view

http://www.chessvideos.tv/endgame-t...

In over 25 years of dealing with newspaper editors, I've realized that they *totally* undervalue chess columns (along with bridge, poker, crosswords, miscellaneous puzzles, etc.)

Their ego just refuses to accept that many people buy papers mainly for chess columns, or crosswords, bridge, etc. You can get 'news' anywhere, and comment is all around us. Maybe chess did itself a disservice (in the old media) by moving so thoroughly into the internet.

<Domdaniel: Maybe chess did itself a disservice (in the old media) by moving so thoroughly into the internet.>

Rybka 4 x 64

BLUNDERS

BLACK: depth : 22 : 19 min :
(+2.47):24...Ke8. Best, Ne6, +1.07.

1. (1.07): 24...Ne6 25.Bf6 Ke8 26.Ng5 Bxg2[] 27.Kxg2 h6 28.Ne4 Ra8 29.g4 Rab8 30.f3

2. (1.52): 24...Re8 25.Bxe7+ Rxe7 26.Ng5[] Ne6 27.Nxh7+ Kg7 28.Nf6 c4 29.f4 Bxg2 30.Kxg2 c3 31.bxc3 Rxc3 32.h4 b5 33.R1d3 Rc1 34.Kh3 b4 35.Rd1 Rc2 36.R1d2 Rxd2 37.Rxd2 Rb7 38.Kg4 a5 39.Ne8+ Kh6

BLACK: depth : 21 : 4 min :
(+5.57):26...Ngf5. Best, Rxd6, +2.47.

I don't know Jack Peters from Adam. What I do know is that he wrote an excellent column at that paper for many, many years, was an enthusiastic promoter of chess in this region and still is a damn good player, now pushing 60, with an FIDE rating of 2360.