Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:16:47 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 15:05:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 15:00:46, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 14:33:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2002 at 14:26:54, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On March 06, 2002 at 14:12:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 06, 2002 at 14:07:15, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>>[snip[ >>>>>>Ok then! Well then simply put you must consider castling is a possible option:) >>>>>>If too much is said, then the problem becomes mundane. >>>>> >>>>>Where do the assumptions stop? >>>>>Might pawns be e.p. vulnerable? >>>>>Might we be playing a chess variant? >>>>> >>>>>The problem as stated is simply buggy. >>>> >>>>You _must_ keep all options, possibilities open! >>>> >>>>Then your mind is Free to Solve the problem/s:o) >>> >>>I can solve them all instantly, using the technique of "hidden queens" >> >>Sorry Dan, I'm afraid your point is lost on me!? >> >>*Hidden Queens*? Duh...I'm afraid I need an explanation! *Sigh* > >If castling rights can be hidden (missing from the position description) then >why not pieces? >;-) >[D]5Q1Q/5Q1Q/5Q1Q/5Q1Q/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w K - Oh...I see, that's done in retrograde analysis problems (Help Mates), although they do mention you must find where the pieces stood before they were knocked from the board. Anyways, you were joking, ha! Terry, The Gullible!
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.