Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 16:29:21 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 18:45:54, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 17:35:09, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>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? > >The way you did it was just perfect, unless some people prefer the old >fashion way: > >White: Ke1, Rf1, Rh1 g3 >Black: Kg2 >It is Mate in 3, how? > >This problem contains all the information needed to be solved. > >Then everybody will complain: Why don't you post the diagram!! > >You can also try >"Once upon a time, there was a beautiful princess who saw a marvelous >chess board with ivory and ebony pieces. There was a frog who said to her, >If you tell me the solution, you will break the spell and I will be >a handsome prince again. It is mate in 3, you have a white King on e1, two white >rooks on f1 and h1 respectively, a white pawn in g3 and the black king is in g2. >The princess looked at the board and asked, yeah, but what's the FEN?. >And the frog remained a frog for ever and ever" > >Regards, >Miguel > LOL! Thanks Miguel, that lifted my spirits!:) Regards, 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.