Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:44:02 03/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2002 at 00:24:32, Terry McCracken wrote: >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? I didn't trample on _anything_. I pointed out that you had posted an invalid FEN position and that was that. > >Look at the position for what it is. A very clever composition! I believe I gave you credit for something "clever". But I also pointed out that it was "broken" according to the precise specification for FEN position strings. >> >> >>> >>>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.