Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Posted elsewhere, this is proven a mate in 9 and no less. Really?

Author: Heiner Marxen

Date: 09:11:51 02/06/01

Go up one level in this thread


On February 06, 2001 at 11:47:31, James wrote:

>On February 05, 2001 at 17:21:30, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>Took nearly an hour!
>>
>>[D]2r3k1/5ppp/7r/Q7/3P1p2/1N3Pnq/PP3K1P/R5R1 b - -
>>
>>E:\>chest319 -b -z 9 -M 200 m09.epd
>>2r3k1/5ppp/7r/Q7/3P1p2/1N3Pnq/PP3K1P/R5R1 b - - acn 429658002; acs 3414; bm
>>Ne4+; ce 32750; dm 9; pv Ne4+ fxe4 Qe3+ Kf1 Rxh2 Rxg7+ Kxg7 Qe5+ f6 Qe7+ Kg6
>>Qxf6+ Kxf6 e5+ Kg6 e6 Qf2#;
>....Think someone had better look at NxN after Ne4+ before taking a claom of
>mate in 9, in fact, white wins if Ne4+ ... Black can win though with Qe6 rather
>than Ne4.  It is an interesting position that shows how differently programs can
>think.

Uh, that is quite a funny knight you have, jumping from b3 to e4...
The NxN you propose is not a legal move.  Please double check
the position.  If you still think, that the above "mate in 9" is not
correct, please indicate exactly, which white move would avoid the mate,
and I will try to answer with a mate PV.

Heiner



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.