Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:46:44 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 17:26:05, Terry McCracken wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 17:07:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 06, 2002 at 16:55:53, Terry McCracken 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. >>> >>>You've got to be joking!? If it's the fault of how I set the diagram, please >>>forgive me! >>> >>>Forget FEN, Forget EPD and look at it as a _position only_ with the only clue >>>Mate in 3! >>> >>>I'll check the rules on what is or is not needed at the end of the FEN. >>> >>>But really, you must have understood my intent and that this _position_ >>>forgeting the *Rule Base* for FEN and or EPD is a mate in 3? >> >>Actually I didn't give it much thought, because the idea of grabbing a >>position that is not legal never entered my mind. In the position you gave, >>white has no castling rights by the FEN string, and white has no rook to >>castle with either. Also it is not exactly "white to move" because white >>has already started to make a move but has not completed it. >> >>Which was my point in the first place... what is the interest in grabbing >>a position on the board at some random point in time, rather than grabbing it >>only when one side is to move in a legal position? >> >>How convoluted! Please! I agree you gave it little thought, except for your >defence! I gave it all the thought it deserved. I assume _legal_ positions. I don't care for positions with rooks "in transit" or any other such nonsense since FEN does _not_ allow for such, and for good reason... > >I was unaware of these rules with FEN when I posted....I thought maybe you would >see my error, (In this case not knowing the FEN Rules) and understand I was >setting up a Mate in 3 Problem and to attempt to solve it! > >Of course this means you would look at it as if I set it up on a *Real* board >and said look Bob; Here's a mate in 3 White to Move, do you see it? >> >> >>> >>>Now try your EGTBs with the castling rule, thanks! >> >>EGTBs don't include castling because it would be a waste of time and >>space. >> >>Yes I guess it would be 99.999% of the time. >>> >>>Terry
This page took 0.01 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.