Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:51:55 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 If you want to post positions with a piece "en route" then feel free to do so. But you can _not_ claim that you are providing a "FEN" string because FEN does not allow that. And computers do not accept such broken positions. Since this is the "computer chess forum" I make the assumption that FEN is "standard FEN" which is precisely defined in the EPD/PGN standards, and having pieces "en route" is simply not allowed nor even mentioned because it is absurd except for cute "brain twisters" like yours. Nothing wrong with such things, but they _really_ don't belong here where everyone is using computers to play with the positions...
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.