Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 21:30:43 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 23:51:55, Robert Hyatt 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 > > >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... Well at least you admit it's a very clever problem. Good Night! 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.