Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: James

Date: 17:33:00 02/06/01

Go up one level in this thread


On February 06, 2001 at 12:11:51, Heiner Marxen wrote:

>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.
duh, u r exactly right, i set the knight on c3 rather than b3.. how did i do
that?
>
>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.