Is solving the same puzzles again worth it, or should I always use fresh ones?
These answers restate the rules implemented by our open-source engine, which follows the WXF laws and is regression-tested against the official 110-diagram repetition casebook. Where an answer refers to a specific position, that position lives on the linked reference page, where the build verifies it against the engine before publishing.
Direct answer
Yes, particularly while you are still building your pattern library. Solving a puzzle again a few days after you first saw it cements the pattern in memory far more effectively than moving straight on to something new, and it tests whether you actually learned the idea or just remembered the answer.
Why fresh puzzles alone can feel productive without building much
A constant stream of new puzzles feels like real progress, since you are always seeing something you have not solved before, but if you never revisit anything, you have no way of knowing whether the earlier patterns actually stuck or simply passed through without leaving much behind. Repetition is what turns a pattern you solved once into a pattern you recognise instantly later.
A practical way to combine both
Mix mostly new puzzles with a smaller set of repeats from a week or two earlier, ideally without checking the answer first so you are genuinely testing recall rather than recognising the specific position by memory alone. If a repeated puzzle still takes real effort, that is useful information about what still needs work.
Related questions
Won't I just memorise the position instead of learning the pattern?
With enough puzzles in rotation and enough time between repeats, this is a minor risk compared to the benefit of reinforcement.
Is this different advice from what's given for named mating patterns?
No, it is the same underlying idea applied more broadly across your whole puzzle practice, not just named mates.
.