I'm a terrible chess player, which I don't mind. But a side effect of this is that I cannot find decent chess problems. Forget a mate three, I'm at the level where I miss obvious forks. Problem is, there doesn't seem to be a decent size collection of such problems. You'd expect there to be quite some demand for it. Maybe I should try to create a few with this system.
I enthusiastically recommend Chess Tempo (https://chesstempo.com/), which will give you interactive chess puzzles from real games that are tailored to your level. Someone else mentioned the similar system on lichess, which is also fine.
The main way to improve at solving tactical puzzles - and at seeing tactical opportunities/threats in games - is to develop pattern recognition for the many tactical themes there are. Training on specific themes for some time is a very powerful way to do so. I'm experimenting with this approach on BraiMax Chess and results from users are very good - I'll publish some stats as soon as I get enough data.
I’m in a very similar position and it has been very challenging finding good resources — most feel like the “now draw the rest of the owl” meme after explaining how the pieces move.
I’ve been enjoying the Dr Wolf app, which mixes lessons, actual play against a very forgiving CPU opponent, and spaced repetition of mistakes.
I tried Chessable but the UI was awful and beginner/learning content was poor.
(author here) That's a good question, I should've explained it better.
Technically, the other property of a puzzle is that there's exactly one good move. If you have one move that can mate in 3 and another move that can mate in 4, it's actually not a puzzle by the strict definition of the term. So, the reason I set the depth to 10 was because I'm actually looking for the second best move to be bad/losing.
For real positions, 10 might honestly be too low to confidentially state that every other move is bad, but for mate in 3 it was a good enough and still performed well.
At high enough depth the only real evaluations are #N, #-N, and 0. I’ve let stockfish sit on positions for an hour on my computer and it’ll find mate in 40. Of course in practical terms that’s computationally infeasible for your problem.
See also generation of a chess variant's puzzles, which is much more thorough & gets much better results by throwing the kitchen sink at it: https://samiramly.com/chess
Can someone skilled in the art tell me where can I learn more about generating those puzzles? Are puzzles on chess.com hand-crafted, or are they generated with an algorithm?