Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:31:49 01/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2001 at 19:31:08, Paul wrote: >On January 30, 2001 at 19:14:35, Olaf Jenkner wrote: > >>>My program solved the mate in 121 in 3h14m15.92s on ply 42, but unfortunately >>>this forum is too small to contain the solution ;) >>> >>>But seriously, I would also like to see the answer ... it's not obvious. >>> >>>Paul >>1.Bd1 h6 2-9. Kd8-e7-f8-g7-g8-f8-e7-d8 Ra8 10.Kc7 f4 >>19.-f5 30.-f3 41.-f2 52.-f4 63.-f3 74.-h3 ... 107.-h2 >>118.Kc7 Ra7 119.Kb8 Ra8+ 120.K:a8 121.Nf2# >>As you said: this forum is too small to contain the solution >> >>OJe > >Thanks Andrew ... I'll sleep much better tonite! >But actually you should have waited 300 years ;) >Et c'est Mr. 'de' Fermat pour toi! Just in case you are a reader of news:sci.math, I added a corny title. Anyway, if you have endgame tablebase files, you can prove mates of inordinate length. If you had 7 piece files (not inconceivable) you could obviously prove any 7 piece ending with a simple lookup. And if you had 8 pieces on the board, you could know of mates immediately by examination of any capture. Non-captures would be more problematic, but I think you could (perhaps) allow pseudo-solutions which could absurdly shorten the trees. e.g.: bxh4 ... <M32 EGTB> Q.E.D. Now, it might be possible to get a shorter mate by not taking a piece and so you have not proven a shortest mate. But you could allow that as a specific option.
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.