Author: Dennis Breuker
Date: 00:58:47 01/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2003 at 18:08:19, F. Huber wrote:
>On January 05, 2003 at 14:07:13, Dennis Breuker wrote:
>
>>On January 05, 2003 at 12:23:34, F. Huber wrote:
>>
>>>On January 05, 2003 at 11:55:34, Dennis Breuker wrote:
>>>
>>>>From this book (page 8):
>>>>[D] 8/8/4P3/3p4/2p3p1/1pP1kPPp/1P5P/R3K2R w KQ - 0 1
>>>>White mates in 3 (Krabbé, Schaakbulletin 1972).
>>>>Solution:
>>>>1.e7 {Threatening 2.e8=Q+ followed by 3.Qe2 mate}
>>>>The main variations are:
>>>>(a) 1..gxf3 2.e8=Q+ Kd3 3.0-0-0 mate
>>>>(b) 1..Kxf3 2.e8=R! {2.e8=Q? Kg2!} and now:
>>>> (b1) 2..d4 3.0-0 mate
>>>> (b2) 2..Kg2 3.0-0-0-0 mate
>>>>So a problem with three different castlings as solution!
>>>...
>>>>Dennis
>>>
>>>This is what ChestUCI says about it:
>>>
>>>ChestUCI Ver.2.4:
>>>Search for Mate in 10 ...
>>>Mate in 4 found ! (1 Solution in 00:00)
>>>D4 00:00 M4 e7 Kxf3 Rf1 Ke3 e8Q Kd3 0-0-0
>>>
>>>Franz.
>>
>>See above for the intended solution: in (b2) it says
>>3.0-0-0-0 mate. And Chest does not know this move I guess...
>
>Of course not, and that´s good so - otherwise Chest would have a BUG!
>
>>Please (re-)read the discussion about 0-0-0-0 first...
>
>I did read it, but ´0-0-0-0´ is definitely an illegal (better: nonexisting)
>move,
The point is, in 1972 (when this problem was composed) the FIDE
rules were not clear enough, and the intended solution could be
interpreted as legal...
After that, the FIDE changed the castling rules to prevent this
(see other posting in same thread, or actually, it was in the
same posting, but you removed it: ...).
Dennis
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.