Author: Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz
Date: 17:22:40 03/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 07, 2004 at 20:13:05, Mike Byrne wrote: >On March 07, 2004 at 17:29:33, Art Basham wrote: > >>[D]r4r1k/pbq3p1/1ppbpn1p/3p4/1P1B2NQ/P1P5/2B3PP/3R1R1K w - - 0 1 >> >>See if your program can announce a mate in 10 at move one... >>beginning with 1. RxN...etc. >> >>(BxN may also be a win, not sure),,, > > >I left it it run for over 45 minutes and it was failing high... > >I believe it's at least a mate-in 16 ( may be shorter , may have other >solutions) > > white black > 1 Nxh6 e5 > 2 Nf7+ Kg8 > 3 Rxf6 Rxf7 > 4 Qh7+ Kf8 > 5 Qh8+ Ke7 > 6 Rxf7+ Ke6 > 7 Qh3+ Kxf7 > 8 Rf1+ Ke7 > 9 Qh4+ Kd7 > 10 Bf5+ Ke8 > 11 Bg6+ Kd7 > 12 Rf7+ Kc8 > 13 Qh8+ Bf8 > 14 Qxf8+ Qd8 > 15 Bf5+ Kb8 > 16 Bxe5# ... I agree with you... but it is maybe mate even in less than 16 moves. Anyway, this clearly-won positions where any decent engine is easily unbeatable is not particularly interesting for programmers. Surely an engine can be designed to find these type of checkmates in a short time, but they'll probably be unefficient in playing decent chess in "normal" positions throughout a "normal" game. A good player or any strong engine would probably resing at this stage anyway, so what's the point in using so much time and effort to find the shortest mate? Regards, Jaime
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.