Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:26:32 03/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2002 at 12:40:27, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On March 07, 2002 at 12:11:12, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On March 07, 2002 at 10:44:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >>Then explain how please to give the correct FEN for this position, thanks. > > >In a strict sense this is not possible. FEN demands to include the exact >castling rights. Without them it is not a FEN notation. > >So, you cannot use FEN to pose a "chess problem". Not always, at least, >as we see from this example. > >Using some prefix of a FEN to state a "chess problem" seems to be a useful >coding attempt. But strictly speaken, "it is no FEN". So it be. > >Piece? > >Cheers, >Heiner > Thanks Heiner! Maybe something can be done to fix this anomalous type of "chess problem" in the future adding some new code to FEN or some kind of work around? It would helpful that's for sure!:) "Piece":) Terry > >>>> >>>>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. >>> >>>Ok I made a note of that and gave you a reply somewhere here!:) >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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 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.