Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 14:35:09 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 17:33:25, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 17:09:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 16:21:22, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On March 06, 2002 at 15:59:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 06, 2002 at 13:55:14, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 06, 2002 at 13:09:05, Robert Hyatt 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>This is a mate in 4, not a mate in 3, as confirmed by EGTBs... >>>>> >>>>>Dr. Hyatt with all due respect, EGTBs will _not_ help you with this type >>>>>of problem. EGTBs look at it as an endgame where it's assumed the King and both >>>>>Rooks have been moved. Maybe EGTBs can be adjusted for this situation? >>>>> >>>>>Castling is the correct solution, which forces mate in 3. >>>>> >>>>>BTW CM8000 in mate mode or in normal mode will find mate in 3 instantly! >>>>> >>>>>This problem created 145 years ago by Samuel Lloyd when he was not yet 16 years >>>>>of age, is still considered one of the most famous problems in chess history. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle9/puzz9-6a.htm >>>>> >>>>>The solution can be found at this link. >>>>> >>>>>http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle9/games/p9_6.htm >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>> Terry McCracken >>>> >>>> >>>>Sorry, but if you check the +EPD+ posted for the position, there is _no_ >>>>castling possible. Which means this is a simple mate in 4 and the EGTB >>>>results are perfect. >>> >>>The position was: >>>8/8/8/8/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w >>> >>>if there where no castling possible, shouldn't it have been: >>>8/8/8/8/8/6P1/6k1/4KR1R w - >>> >>>leaving out the "-" probably indicates there might or might not be castle >>>rights. >>> >>>Guess we need to feed the engines all possible combinations... >>> >>>-S. >> >> >>The EPD standard is _very_ specific. There is no such thing as "castling >>might be legal" because there is no such thing in the game of chess. It either >>is or is not. >> >>Leaving out the castle status results in invalid FEN. Putting it in in the >>given position would also be invalid because the rook is missing. > >Tough man to please, then how pray tell can I show such a mate problem? > >Terry Or I should say how do I show this type of mate problem? Terry
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.