I'm a little bit disappointed with this one. Thought it was something it isn't. I was going through the book and using a chess analyser as my "board", since I don't have a physical board. I noticed around the 10th that although Pandolini said that there was some move or set of moves for white which would lead to a win of material or the game, that the analyser gave black the better advantage. Even after I followed what was written, black still had the advantage. I moved to the next one and ran into the same issue. Further, Pandolfini ignores good moves for the opposing player and pretends that the opposing player would never think of playing that move.
An example:
#11, "Skewer", Danish Gambit
1. e4 ...... e5
2. d4 ...... exd4
3. c3? ..... dxc3
4. Bc4? ...... cxb2
5. Bxb2 ..... Bb4+
6. Kf1 ....... Nf6
7. e5 ...... d5
8. Bb5+? ...... Nfd7
Pandolfini's solution:
9. Qg4 ..... Bf8 ?
10. e6 ... fxe6 ??
11. Qh5+ ... Ke7 ??
12. Ba3+ .... c5
13. Bxc5 ... Nxc5
14. Qg5+
As you can see, the solution requires a few blunders by your opponent to actually achieve anything.
How are you supposed to find the solution to a problem where your opponent isn't playing rationally?
Logically, 9. Qg4 would be followed by 9. ... c6
My solution then, could be anything. Perhaps I push the pawn on e5 and instead of taking, the opponent pushes f6. Then I check on h5 and he moves his king to f8 and I checkmate on the next move? How's that solution?
9. e6 ... f6 ????
10. Qh5 ... Kf8 ???
11. Qf7 mate
Seems a little silly? That's because it is.