Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:14:11 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 13:04:29, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 11:56:02, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 11:30:38, Heiner Marxen wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2002 at 11:20:17, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>[D]8/8/8/8/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w >>>> >>>> >>>>Mate in 3 >>>> >>>>Terry >>> >>>Yes, clever indeed, but only if you add the king side castling right for white. >>>Then: >>> >>> Rf4 Kxg3 O-O Kh3 R1f3# >>> Kxh1 Kf2 Kh2 Rh4# >>> >>>I like it :-) >>> >>>Cheers, >>>Heiner >> >>Yes, clever indeed, but only if you add the king side castling right for white. >> >>That's the point, you _must_ assume when given a problem when the King is on >>it's initial square along with it's Rook or Rooks that 0-0 or 0-0-0 is >>permissible. > >You do not have to assume anything, the information is already in the statement >of the problem. You give the position without telling anything about castling, >it is not said that it is possible, it is not said that is impossible. >The fact that is informed that THERE IS a mate in 3 already determines that >castling on the king side _MUST_ be possible. This is not a trick, the >information is there. It is an error in the FEN/EPD string then. If they want to do something like that, they should specify it in the problem, or perhaps do something like this: 8/8/8/8/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w ? ?
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.