Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 11:14:39 11/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1998 at 11:46:50, Heiner Marxen wrote: >On November 14, 1998 at 10:37:55, Hans Havermann wrote: > >>Valentin Albillo, more than a year ago, posted his "unsolved" >>3qk3/8/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - (Test #91: >><http://www.multimania.com/albillo/ajedre9a.htm>). Computationally intensive, >>Albillo conjectured "it's a mate in 12". A number of chess engines had a go at >>it, but the attempts are old and seem dated. I wonder if this problem has since >>been solved. > >This problem is really hard to solve. According to my problem solving >program this is most probably not solvable in 9 moves (or less). >[ "most probably" because I accidentally turned castling off ] >That computation took 4.5 hours on a fast machine. Trying to solve >(or disprove) a mate in ten would take 15x that time. I didn't try, >and now I don't have access to that fast/big box anymore. > >>I thought I should let MacChess (5.0b3) try this on my 300 MHz G3. After 56 >>hours, toward the end of 13-ply, MacChess came up with: >> >> 1. e4 Qd4 >> 2. Bb5+ Ke7 >> 3. Qg4 Qe5 >> 4. Qd7+ Kf8 >> 5. d3 Qh5 Starting from here, (FEN 5k2/3Q4/8/1B5q/4P3/3P4/PPP2PPP/RNB1K1NR w KQ -), I get two `mate in 6' solutions, namely 6.Nf3 and 6.Nh3. Hence, 6.Bf4 is not optimal, and 5. ...Qh5 may be questionable. >> 6. Bf4 Qf7 > >Well, starting from here, I can confirm, that 1.Bh6+ is a mate in 6, >that there is no faster way to force mate, nor any other way to mate in 6. >I'm working on more, but don't hold your breath. > >> 7. Bh6+ Kg8 [rest snipped]
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.