The chess problem described in item 70 always surprised me. It just didn't seem worthy of inclusion. A few years ago I happened across the book by Lasker that

The chess problem described in item 70 always surprised me. It just didn't seem worthy of inclusion. A few years ago I happened across the book by Lasker that it was drawn from and found that they'd made a typo in their description of the problem (bishop should be at KB8, not KB7), one that still makes it a mate-in-3 as described, but nowhere as interesting as what it should have been. I wrote it up in /r/chess: Problem 66 from Chess for Fun, Chess for Blood by Lasker: white to mate in 3 [1] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/73h23o/problem_66_from_chess_for_fun_chess_for_blood_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/73h23o/problem_66_fr...