The argument that chess media should be designed for people with very casual interest, even when presenting endgame studies, detracts from that media. It makes me wonder, as a chessplayer, should I really keep coming back to this source? This source that isn't interested in creating content for chessplayers? That dreams of being popular, cool, interested in by people without serious interest in chess? Is chess a religion that requires adherents to proselytize?

Is this the answer to the question, why does the site have so much less quality content than it used to? My main theory was lack of funding, but @Frederic's comment leaves me wondering. I'm also wondering why a software company has a website with JS text entry boxes that prevent typing the letter q. So strange.

Actually, there is an idea in Satman's words. Nowadays, in the headlines of Finnish daily newspapers, there are lot`s of quality words like exciting, incredible, chilling..., but then when you try to look for those chilling, exciting... parts in the news, you can't find them at all. We could change the name of chess to hyper-chess because it is a more exciting name. Maybe the puzzles will also become so boring as a name that their name will also be changed to hyperpuzzles? However, the truth is that the puzzle already has a name: the endgame studies. Should you, Frederic, change Chessbase to Hyper-Chessbase because it is much more baffling and exciting? Just a thought.

Gauri's explanation of the first puzzle doesn't cover what I found the most plausible try. It's obvious that 1. b7 or 1. Kb2 fail immediately; the main point to note is that you need to prevent the rook attacking the pawn along either the rank or the file. 1. Bb5 looks like one way of doing it, because Black can't play 1... Rc6 and if 1... Rb1 2. Ka4 protects the bishop and Black still can't attack the pawn (or at least not immediately). Black does draw in this line (by getting the rook to b8 to attack the pawn from the front: 2... Ra1+ 3. Kb4 Ra8 followed by 4... Rb8, is one way to do so, although not the only one), but it's not as clear cut. It was looking at that line and figuring out why it didn't work which led me to consider other ways to block the rook in both directions, and ultimately to the correct solution.

@satman: It is a possibly vain attempt to invite people casually interested in unusual areas of chess to give it a try. "Here's a puzzle that is bound to baffle" is more inviting than "Today we present an study composed by the Georgian endgame experts Revas Tavariani and D. Matsonashvili" which for some beginners casual can be translated to "Go away, you are just an amateur."

Very nice, but please stop calling then 'puzzles' - they're endgame studies.

In Gauri Shankar's solutions, I noticed that the solution of final position in Hasek is wrong. After 11..Ka7!? 12.b6?? Ka8 leads to stalemate.
Correct solution is 12.Kc7! Ka8 13.Kb6 (Kc8 or Kc6 also leads to a win) Kb8 14.Ka6 Ka8 15.b6 Kb8 16.b7 Kc7 17.Ka7 wins. The pawn promotes.

Regards,
Anil K. Anand