Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 12:41:25 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 15:18:32, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 14:46:13, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 13:14:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>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 ? ? >> >>Sure, but In this case the poster gave (it is in the top of this message) >>8/8/8/8/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w >> >>That is quite similar to what you suggest. This forum allows to post >>incomplete EPDs (or FENs), which is ok for this kind of problem. >> >>Miguel > >So, not only should we to solve the problem, but also design the position?? Yes, that's part of the problem! and there is only one possible solution to design the position. >In this case, where we actually have the FEN, leaving out the castle and en >passent flags are misleading IMO. All the information about the position should >be in the FEN, or one can claim the FEN is incorrect IMO, the FEN is what >_defines_ the position. Since people are getting very strict with this simple problem, let me say that the OP did not give a FEN, gave the needed "ad hoc" notation used by this forum that look similar to FEN, but is is not FEN. It is not even EPD. It accepts FEN and EPD too. Miguel > >How about this one, where is the en passent, or is there one? >[D]8/1r1r2k1/8/pPppPpPp/8/8/3N4/4K2R w > >-S.
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.