Somehow before the Rook got loose, he had to have lost the kingside bishop, knight and knight-pawn without their having moved. One of Black's moves had to have been a capture of the g pawn. Probably Rg3.
Given that the dark square bishop is gone, and it never moved, and the White DSB never moved it was probably a knight that did the deed.
I cannot make the knight tour in less than 13 moves and I still need to push the pawn a square, so I'm stumped for the moment.
Somehow before the Rook got loose, he had to have lost the kingside bishop, knight and knight-pawn without thei ...[text shortened]... in less than 13 moves and I still need to push the pawn a square, so I'm stumped for the moment.
That's the general idea - you count the minimum number of moves and go from there.
You can get an R to f3 in only 2 moves (Rd8-d3, f3) and an N to f5 in only 2 (Nh6-f5). That may start some new trains of thought.
That's also a tad difficult. I can't do it in less than 13 moves for white. 1 pawn move, 10 knight moves around the board plus two more waiting for black to get into position.
To solve the problem black has to make 10 piece moves and 1 pawn move, I think. I can't do it without 4 moves for the black knight, making 12 in total.
Out of interest can computers handles compositions such as this? Whilst the only moves it would take extraordinary power to merely number crunch.
Yes, computers can solve most Proof Games. The programmer has to add some heuristics, like counting the minimal number of moves for each possible routing of pieces that reaches the position. The computer can then disregard any moves exceeding the allotted total for a specific piece.
Easier Proof Game
12 Dec '13 20:11
Back to Top