|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
tugger 21-Jan-10, 21:43 |
 The mother of all chess puzzles?Now, the solution to this puzzle was technically legal at the time it was created. You didn't think it'd be simple, did you? I certainly can't put this up in the puzzle section here. Well, I can, but it's mate in four, not three. Lateral thinking is the key (or previous knowledge of this position, of course!). Good luck, you'll need it! |
||
|
kingdawar 22-Jan-10, 02:22 |
1. e7 |
||
|
baronderkilt 22-Jan-10, 06:10 |
Great find tugger, thx for sharing. So I'm not being critical ... But as a Chess Problem, its flawed for having double solutions! Please excuse my language, but in striving to be inflammatory & create great controversy, let me say ... "Its a Cook ~!" gasp }8-D The real point being, does everyone see how to solve it a second way? Beware trick Questions of course |
||
|
baronderkilt 22-Jan-10, 06:23 |
ps ... |
||
|
tugger 22-Jan-10, 07:42 |
Let's apply today's rules to the position. 1. e7 1... d4 2. e8=Q+... 2... Kd3 3. 0-0-0# 2... Kxf3 3. 0-0# 1... Kd3 2. e8=Q... 2... Kc2 3. Qe2# 2... d4 3. 0-0-0# 1... Kxf3 2. e8=Q Kg2 3. Qe2+ Kxh1 4. 0-0-0# or Kd2# Does it count as cooked if it's just the mating move that has more than one option? I don't think in the main line that white has the choice of rook or queen for mate in four, for example... 2. e8=R... 2... Kg2 3. Re2+ Kxf3 4. Rf1# 3... Kxh1 4. 0-0-0# Ok, it is cooked, sorry! But, of course, it's only cooked since the rules were adapted. In 1972, it was most certainly not cooked, it was mate in three, and there is only one move white can make each move in order to achieve this. I think baron knows the solution... and very probaly HK too! |
||
|
tugger 22-Jan-10, 07:52 |
4. 0-0-0# that's move 2 and 3, not 3 and 4... oops... doesn't matter though! I wish posts could be edited for ten minutes after posting... |
||
|
kingdawar 22-Jan-10, 07:57 |
|
||
|
Anti-problem... 1.e7 Kxf3 2.e8=R Kg2 3.0-0-0-0-0-0# Why that funny-looking notation? Castling with the newly promoted rook! It hasn't moved before; we presume the WK has similarly been immobile so far in the game, castling extra-long must be legal, right? Actually, it isn't now, though it might have been before 1972, as the rules now specify castling along a rank. My 1974 copy of the (USCF edition) of the Official Rules of Chess states in Article 6 "the moves of the individual pieces", 6.1 The King. ... '...Castling is a move of the king and either rook, counting as a single move (of the king), executed as follows: the king is transferred , from its original square, two squares squares toward either rook ON THE SAME RANK; then that rook ... etc' (Emphasis mine). |
||
|
tugger 23-Jan-10, 12:30 |
I believe the correct notation for move three is (the source of this puzzle uses this notation)... 3. 0-0-0-0# It involves moving the king two squares toward the newly promoted rook, and then placing the rook the other side of the king. We know the king hasn't moved, nor any of the rooks, because we can see in the 4-move mate analysis above applying to today's rules that we can castle either side to acheive mate in four. As for the rule change, I actually have no idea when this occured, though I'm fairly sure it was after this puzzle was composed; of course the composer wanted to demonstrate this quirky little loophole in the rules of chess. It might well have been the publication of this puzzle that prompted the rule change. But I do wonder if this form of castling has ever happened in a game before 1972. Applying today's rules to this puzzle, it's cooked, because there are two ways for white to mate in four along one line of defence (see above analysis). But in 1972, this puzzle was not cooked, there is one way and one way only to acheive mate in three. I just wanted to share this interesting position I found! Hope you enjoyed it! |
||
|
tugger 23-Jan-10, 12:38 |
1. e7 d4 2. e8=queen or rook... 3. 0-0# / 0-0-0# (depending which side the king moved of course) Now, along this line promotion is a choice between rook and queen, so is this a cooked puzzle, or is it acceptable to have a choice at promotion? |
||
|
kingdawar 23-Jan-10, 12:38 |
Check out anselan.com |
||
|
The retrograde puzzle... w Ignore the 'w' The problem you have to solve is: who moved last? There are a few things you can infer from this position: A. If Black moved last... 1. Then he had to have captured a major piece, rook or queen. 2. This piece would have had to have moved to a8 along the a-file or the 8-rank. 3. Before that, the BK was standing at a7 of b8... At this point my creativity gives out (big think time) B. If White moved last... 1.White captured a major piece (Q or R) or a pawn. 2.A possibility (to be confirmed or refuted) is that there had been an exchange of Queens on c6 (e.g. given a position like this: w in which White plays 1.Qc6+ etc. The thing with retrograde puzzles is that they do not assume sensible play. For example, in the puzzle as derived, it seems so far possible that given this situation w White might have played 1.Qa8+?? Kxa8. The question we would have to ask ourselves, is how feasible is the position before the Q-check? Black would have had to move the K from c8 to b8, so what was White's previous move? (Note that the similar position could arise of the heavy piece were on the 8-rank, and the BK moved Ka6-a7). This is where I get a bit lost. White could have move to Q to the a-file, could have moved the Q along the a-file, or even have moved the K to c6. I can not see that this is unfeasible. Thoughts? |
||
|
Anti-problems... All of them featured some tweak in the rules (I have a vague memory of one puzzle the solution of which both sides promoting a pawn to an enemy Queen! Amazing). I would like to see more anti-problems here. Cheers, Ion |
||
|
baronderkilt 24-Jan-10, 16:23 |
According to Wiki-pedia . . . (consider that my disclaimer :) Surely this Krabbe problem not only qualifies as interesting solving; but also makes fair political commentary upon the state of Chess Rules of that day! I think it is my favorite. **** HOWever, to make another obscure observation which can never be used in an actual Chess game . . . imo the correct notation for castling-King(e)-file would be: O-O-O-O-O-O . I would argue that there is precedent set in the matter, thusly: * To make the move O-O the R travels 2 Squares to land upon the f-file ... * To O-O-O the Rook travels 3 squares to reach the d-file ... * In castling e-file, the Rook must travel 6 squares to reach its destination, thus O-O-O-O-O-O. As Ion suggested. So I must agree with him on this one; at least until I see what Wiki says }8-D *** Just because Krabbe made the best Chess problem ever, doesn't mean he gets to fly against propriety of the obscure&inconsequential; we best nip this now before society breaks down. |
||
|
tugger 24-Jan-10, 17:02 |
Been enjoying looking at those dead reckoning positions, and even think I found a flaw in one, but let me look into it further... |
||
|
tugger 24-Jan-10, 17:09 |
|
||
|
Speaking of 'anti-problems'... Cheers, Ion |
