Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 12:43:09 03/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 2005 at 15:01:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 01, 2005 at 14:49:47, Heiner Marxen wrote: > >>On March 01, 2005 at 14:34:36, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On March 01, 2005 at 14:24:44, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On March 01, 2005 at 14:22:49, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 01, 2005 at 13:53:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The opposite of a good test move (one best move choice) is one with lots of >>>>>>equally good winning moves. I was playing around, analyzing some Orangutan >>>>>>games and stumbled on this position: >>>>>>[D]1Q6/8/2K5/3NQ1p1/8/8/5k2/8 w - - acn 2564; acs 0; bm Nc3 Ne3 Qb1 Qb3 Qb4 Qb5 >>>>>>Qbb2+ Qbh8 Qc3 Qc8 Qe3+ Qe4 Qe6 Qe7 Qee8 Qf5+ Qf8+ Qg3+ Qh2+; ce 32762; dm 3; pv >>>>>>Qf5+ Kg2 Ne3+ Kg1 Qf1#; >>>>>> >>>>>>Which made me wonder, >>>>>>In a real game, what is the most ever equally good (DTM) simultaneous best >>>>>>moves? >>>>>> >>>>>>19 equal mates in 3 is interesting, but I wonder if there has ever been (for >>>>>>example) 100 best moves leading to mate in some minimum distance. >>>>> >>>>>I think that it will be hard to find more than 100 legal move in games(you can >>>>>construct position with more than 200 moves but if you talk about positions from >>>>>real games then my experience is that even more than 80 is very rare). >>>>> >>>>>constructing a position with more than 19 mates in 1 is easy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>[D]k7/2PPPPPP/7K/2Q5/2Q5/2Q5/6R1/1R5B w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Here is first position that I composed and I am sure it is easy to compose a >>>>>better example. >>>> >>>>That is why I restricted the set to "real games" rather than constructed >>>>problems. But that is an equally interesting alternative question. >>> >>>I think that the second example that I compose is better >>> >>>[D]1Q5B/2N1Q1R1/4N3/Q1B1k3/3RBR2/8/7Q/Q3Q1K1 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>I can modify movei to calculate how many mates in 1 white has in a short time >>>but it seems that every move of the pieces except the kings and the queens is >>>indirect mate because every square near the king is protected by at least 2 >>>white pieces and only one can stop defending it. >>> >>>I am sure that there is a better example than it. >>> >>> >>>Uri >> >>Not bad, 57 mate in 1: >> >>W: Kg1 Qa1 Qa5 Qb8 Qe1 Qe7 Qh2 Rd4 Rf4 Rg7 Bc5 Be4 Bh8 Nc7 Ne6 (15) >>B: Ke5 (1) >>FEN: 1Q5B/2N1Q1R1/4N3/Q1B1k3/3RBR2/8/7Q/Q3Q1K1 w - - >>analysing (mate in 1 moves): >>Solution (in 1 moves): >> Ne6 - d8 >> Ne6 - f8 >> Ne6 - g5 >> Nc7 - a8 >> Nc7 - a6 >> Nc7 - b5 >> Nc7 - d5 >> Nc7 - e8 >> Be4 - f5 >> Be4 - g6 >> Be4 - h7 >> Be4 - d3 >> Be4 - c2 >> Be4 - b1 >> Be4 - f3 >> Be4 - g2 >> Be4 - h1 >> Be4 - d5 >> Be4 - c6 >> Be4 - b7 >> Be4 - a8 >> Bc5 - d6 >> Bc5 - b4 >> Bc5 - a3 >> Bc5 - b6 >> Bc5 - a7 >> Rg7 - h7 >> Rg7 - f7 >> Rg7 - g8 >> Rg7 - g6 >> Rg7 - g5 >> Rg7 - g4 >> Rg7 - g3 >> Rg7 - g2 >> Rf4 - g4 >> Rf4 - h4 >> Rf4 - f5 >> Rf4 - f6 >> Rf4 - f7 >> Rf4 - f8 >> Rf4 - f3 >> Rf4 - f2 >> Rf4 - f1 >> Rd4 - c4 >> Rd4 - b4 >> Rd4 - a4 >> Rd4 - d5 >> Rd4 - d6 >> Rd4 - d7 >> Rd4 - d8 >> Rd4 - d3 >> Rd4 - d2 >> Rd4 - d1 >> Qh2 - h5 >> Qe7 - g5 >> Qe7 - f6 >> Qe7 - d6 >> >>Cheers, >>Heiner > >Modified movei confirm that it is correct. > >originally I tried to use chest under fritz gui but when I copied list of the >solutions I saw that the same solution repeated more than once. > >Here is analysis copied from the fritz gui. > >New game, >1Q5B/2N1Q1R1/4N3/Q1B1k3/3RBR2/8/7Q/Q3Q1K1 w - - 0 1 > >Analysis by ChestUCI Ver.3.7: > >1.Nd8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Nf8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ng5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Na8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Na6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Nb5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Nd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ne8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bf5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bg6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bh7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bd3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bc2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bb1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bf3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bg2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bh1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bc6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bb7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ba8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bb4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ba3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Bb6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ba7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rh7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rgf7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rg8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rg6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rg5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rgg4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rg3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rg2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rfg4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rh4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rff7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rf1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rc4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rb4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Ra4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Rd1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Qh5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Qg5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Qf6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 >1.Qd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1 00:00:00 Starting from here the list is given again in reverse order, and with "Depth: 1/1". I have no idea how or why that happens. Maybe an interface problem? Cheers, Heiner >1.Qd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Qf6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Qg5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Qh5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ra4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rb4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rc4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rff7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rf5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rh4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rfg4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rg2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rg3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rgg4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rg5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rg6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rg8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rgf7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Rh7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ba7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bb6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ba3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bb4# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bd6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ba8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bb7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bc6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bh1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bg2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bf3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bb1# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bc2# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bd3# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bh7# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bg6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Bf5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ne8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Nd5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Nb5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Na6# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Na8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Ng5# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Nf8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 >1.Nd8# > +- (#1) Depth: 1/1 00:00:00 > >(, 01.03.2005) > >Uri
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.