Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: To Mr. Harris:

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 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.