white: king on A8
rooks on A1 and B6
Black king on G5
White has mate in 5.

I chose A1, F1. This IS mate in 5.
King may may move:
g5, h5: f1, g1
King MUST move h5, h4
b6, h6 MATE
g5, h4: f1, g1 again
h4, h5 will delay his doom one move
or g5, g4: b2, g2 check
g4, h5: f1, g1
forces king to h4 g6, h6 MATE

These are ALL within the 5 move limit and all winning. they need to limit the options to their desired course better.

Then on Pg. 38 "Monster Knight #2"
E2 ok
C3 it says NO!!??
E2,C3,A2,B4,D5,E3,G2,H4,
F3,D4,B5,A7,C6,D8,B7,A5
completes in the most Obvious way.
(gobble pawn,knight,bish,rook,Q,K in order)

They have some serious goofs in this.

oh please!
if you bother to examine what it is in referance to it IS completely readable.
You cant use notation on this fictional setup
because (for pg. 38) there is only one piece that is moveing about the board. Therefor notation is irrelivent. Please examine the question before critisizeing it.

the question would be "why is c3 not accepted as the second move?"
The shown pattern is not only a valid solution but the most logical solution being that it swallows the pieces in order. apart from forcing you to look for a second way to take all the pieces, it IS a valid solution to the puzzle. If forceing a second solution is the indended course, it should say something to that effect instead of answering the move to c3 with a simple "no" as if that doesnt work for some reason. One would think that with so much serious chess talent as a resource and so many predicesors gamewise, that they would be able to restrict you to their intended path more effectively. It appears that they have once again failed in this department as the responce "no" begs the question "what have THEY done wrong here" rather then "what have I..."

Same senario in the first comment. The checkmate I played, though less forcefull, comes EARLIER then the intended solution. They should have recognized this and inplanted a more proper responce. Such as the often heard "that move is good, but you have better. Try again?" Though I would disagree that their move in the first posts comment is "better", it would at least succede that my move was winning. They clearly never consitered a move like f1.