Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 21:24:32 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 23:46:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > So? Why trample on a composition of Beauty? Look at the position for what it is. A very clever composition! > > >> >>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.