A gripe about computer-generated puzzles

@MessyBeast

^ what they said.

I have experienced this attitude in the comments of some of the puzzles as well. "Well okay one move is mate and the other isn't but my move is still better because it's more elegant, or something".

Mate puzzles are designed for you to find mate. If you don't find mate, you have failed the puzzle. You claimed that b3 is just as good a move - this cannot be the case. If there is a move which leads to checkmate and a move that doesn't, then the move that doesn't is categorically not "as good a move" as the one that does. This should not need pointing out.

EDIT: Apologies, I didn't see that you had retracted your statement as we posted at the same time. Good to know we're all on the same page. Peace.

Well if the alternate move was not mating, but still a good move leading to a winning position, then he would be right. And the puzzle would not even have been generated.
But here the proposed move leads to zero advantage for the player, a draw-ish position. That's definitely worse than checkmating the opponent, so the puzzle was generated.

@thibault But what about the puzzle I have mentioned in this forum lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/faulty-puzzle-3 where my move leads to mate as well but only takes one extra move?

The puzzles are great examples of when to use an engine to learn from mistakes, missed opportunities. Remember all the puzzles were generated from human played games. That’s probably also the reason for some of the above comments. Say the puzzles were generated from your played games only? Maybe a single game could generate many different puzzles in different areas... Would you still have those gripes then?

IMO if the puzzle is "find the best move" a move that leads to checkmate with extra moves is not the best. It's good, but not the best.