Mate in 0

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This discussion is hypothetical only. So there is not a conflict here. If either of us is right and the other is wrong doesn't really change anything. So this discussion is about amusement and amusement only.

Let's compare with a problem where a castling is involved. Here we have clear rules: If, with a retro-analysis, it shows that a castling is impos this. No proofs of any kind is really necessary.

And I find this thread rather amusing.

Let's compare with a problem where a castling is involved. Here we have clear rules: If, with a retro-analysis, it shows that a castling is impossible, then castling cannot be a part of the solution.

Well, they seem clear at first, until we see examples like:

W. Langstaff, 1922

White mates in 2

Does this imply that e.p. must be the last move if it can be the last move, or does this imply that e.p. can't be the last move if there is another possibility of move?

It isn't a question of whether e.p. is the last move, but rather whether a two-square pawn advance was the last move.

About the probability: Is it really 50%-50% cabce that one or another of the two possibilites has occurred?

Yes. Your question answers itself.

Why not 30%-70% or any other combination? A pawn move with e.p. possibility is quite a rare occurrens, therefore an e.p. move has very low statistically frequency.

This is irrelevant. We are discussing the probability in this specific position that h2-h4 was the last move played.

But I know this: The stipulation of the problem is "mate in zero moves", therefore it is mate already. Alas: No e.p. move.

Here's the problem with bowing to the composer's authority:
[continued next post]

White mates in 3

OK, so we must obey the stipulation, no matter what our reasoning tells us. Mating in 2 is easy: 1.Nb4 a2 2.Nc2#, but there is no way to extend it one more move! And yet, if you posted this as a problem, you'd surely get 1.Nb4 as the answer from lots of people.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
The problem is a joke problem. There is no intention that it should be taken seriously. If the solution is to turn the board 180 degrees or let the player go from one side of the board to the other make it quite funny. So I settle with this. No proofs of any kind is really necessary.

I've seen joke problems like this one that nevertheless provide an indication that the board ought to be rotated. [Say, the position is illegal unless you do so.] I'll dig up an example later on.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I've seen joke problems like this one that nevertheless provide an indication that the board ought to be rotated. [Say, the position is illegal unless you do so.] I'll dig up an example later on.

Mate in 0

Here, there is some indication that the board must be rotated. [The position is not legal with White at bottom.]

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And yet, if you posted this as a problem, you'd surely get 1.Nb4 as the answer from lots of people.

And they'd all be wrong.

Originally posted by TheMaster37
And they'd all be wrong.

Student37, let me instruct you a bit.

When a "Mate in X" problem has solutions in less than X moves, it is considered to be 'cooked'. The problem is considered unsound, and the composer has the burden of correcting it.

It is true that there are some problems like "helpmate in exactly X" that may have short solutions, but only one way to get a solution of exactly X in length. This is usually done in problems where the theme is loss of tempo. The composer, by the word 'exactly', indicates that he knows there are short solutions, and solvers can disregard them. This is only acceptable in 'help' type problems, where White and Black collaborate to attain a certain end.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Student37, let me instruct you a bit.

When a "Mate in X" problem has solutions in less than X moves, it is considered to be 'cooked'. The problem is considered unsound, and the composer has the burden of correcting it.

It is true that there are some problems like "helpmate in exactly X" that may have short solutions, but only one way to get a solut ...[text shortened]... le in 'help' type problems, where White and Black collaborate to attain a certain end.

Nice diss from the Swiss😲

Originally posted by joe shmo
Nice diss from the Swiss😲

Can I take that as a 'non-sub' rec? 😉

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Student37, let me instruct you a bit.

When a "Mate in X" problem has solutions in less than X moves, it is considered to be 'cooked'. The problem is considered unsound, and the composer has the burden of correcting it.

It is true that there are some problems like "helpmate in exactly X" that may have short solutions, but only one way to get a solut ...[text shortened]... le in 'help' type problems, where White and Black collaborate to attain a certain end.

K. Hannemann, 1933

a) mate in 1 move
b) mate in exactly 2 moves
c) mate in exactly 3 moves
d) mate in exactly 4 moves

Originally posted by David113
K. Hannemann, 1933
[fen]3B4/1K2PN2/3pk1P1/8/4P3/8/8/8[/fen]
a) mate in 1 move
b) mate in exactly 2 moves
c) mate in exactly 3 moves
d) mate in exactly 4 moves

Here, the short solutions are also part of the composer's intended solution. In my h# example, the short solutions are to be ignored.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Student37, let me instruct you a bit.

When a "Mate in X" problem has solutions in less than X moves, it is considered to be 'cooked'. The problem is considered unsound, and the composer has the burden of correcting it.

It is true that there are some problems like "helpmate in exactly X" that may have short solutions, but only one way to get a solut ...[text shortened]... le in 'help' type problems, where White and Black collaborate to attain a certain end.

Problems should be worded correctly.

When a composer makes a problem with a solution in X moves, then he asks for X moves, not less.

Sure, there might be a shorter solution, but that is NOT what the composer asks for. He asks for X moves, so the solution must, per definition, be X moves.

I'm sure there are problems in wich a shorter solution is possible, while the solution wanted is longer and more difficult to see.

The general idea behind chess-problems is to find the shortest mate possible, with the number of moves already given as hint (some composers obviously can't count, otherwise the term "cooked" wouldn't exist). Fine by me, but you cut out a whole lot of other, perhaps more interesting, puzzles; the ones you simply need to find the mate requested. Not all of us do chess-puzzles to get better at chess, I certainly don't :p

Perhaps it's my mathematical nature that founded this view, but it's a shortcoming in YOU not me as far as I'm concerned. Students are required to answer the question stated. A yes/no-question is to be answered with yes or no, a problem to find a mate in 3 is to be answered with a mate in 3.

That most problems state "Mate in X" instead of "Find the shortest mate possible (hint: it's X moves long)" is a laziness in language we see in more occasions. It's a bad habit. A habit that almost everyone practises, but a bad habit nonetheless 😉

Originally posted by TheMaster37
Problems should be worded correctly.

When a composer makes a problem with a solution in X moves, then he asks for X moves, not less.

Sure, there might be a shorter solution, but that is NOT what the composer asks for. He asks for X moves, so the solution must, per definition, be X moves.

I'm sure there are problems in wich a shorter solution is ...[text shortened]... bad habit. A habit that almost everyone practises, but a bad habit nonetheless 😉

Problems should be worded correctly.

Change this to "Problems should be stipulated correctly" and I'll agree with you.

Sure, there might be a shorter solution, but that is NOT what the composer asks for. He asks for X moves, so the solution must, per definition, be X moves.

No, this is not always true, as I've already shown.

Fine by me, but you cut out a whole lot of other, perhaps more interesting, puzzles; the ones you simply need to find the mate requested.

On the contrary, you enhance the value of such problems by exercising some composition skill and getting rid of the short solutions. Composers want the solvers to find the intent idea and appreciate its artistry, without the distraction of banal and mundane cooks. Cooks are like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

Not all of us do chess-puzzles to get better at chess, I certainly don't :p

That's not even on my priority list. My favorite chess problems are retrograde analysis, which is about as far from practical as you can get.

Perhaps it's my mathematical nature that founded this view, but it's a shortcoming in YOU not me as far as I'm concerned.

This 'shortcoming' is shared by the chess problem world. Your illogical view fails to take into account the fact that composers sometimes make flawed problems. [But please, go on; I find it funny when a chess problem n00b tries to lecture me...]

Students are required to answer the question stated. A yes/no-question is to be answered with yes or no, a problem to find a mate in 3 is to be answered with a mate in 3.

Ok, Student37, I am your teacher. Answer these questions:
1) Have you stopped beating your wife? (yes or no)
2) Give me a three-move solution to the problem I posted earlier (the one with wNc6, bPa3, bKa1 and wKc1)

Your attitude reminds me of...
http://www.fukung.net/images/1221/detention_dumbteacher.gif

That most problems state "Mate in X" instead of "Find the shortest mate possible (hint: it's X moves long)" is a laziness in language we see in more occasions.

It's called 'shorthand'. You're allegedly a math guy. This shouldn't even be an issue. Math uses shorthands all the time. Imagine writing out "Simplify the following equation such that the variable x is on the left side of the equation and all other terms are on the right" instead of just, "Simplify".

Originally posted by SwissGambit


[b]Sure, there might be a shorter solution, but that is NOT what the composer asks for. He asks for X moves, so the solution must, per definition, be X moves.

No, this is not always true, as I've already shown.


[/b]

some composers obviously can't count, otherwise the term "cooked" wouldn't exist


just sayin' that this part of your argument is flawed...😛


Edit: I have so many edits because I was trying to get the last part to not be bold because it shouldn't as there are no [ b ] [ / b ] around it.

Edit: It fixed itself somehow... wierd

Why take a joke problem so seriously?
Does it really matter so much?

On the contrary, you enhance the value of such problems by exercising some composition skill and getting rid of the short solutions. Composers want the solvers to find the intent idea and appreciate its artistry, without the distraction of banal and mundane cooks. Cooks are like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

You're right that is takes away flawed problems. I'm referring to others though; puzzles in wich a mate in 2 or 3 is obvious, but where the mate in 5 is very cleverly hidden. Or are you implying that such problems cannot be made, or cannot be interesting?

Ok, Student37, I am your teacher. Answer these questions:
1) Have you stopped beating your wife? (yes or no)
2) Give me a three-move solution to the problem I posted earlier (the one with wNc6, bPa3, bKa1 and wKc1)

Ok, DumbTeacher;

1) No. I have no and never had a wife, therefore I have never beaten my wife. Therefore I can never have stopped beating my wife.

2) There is no such solution. In this case the composer asks for the impossible.

It's called 'shorthand'. You're allegedly a math guy. This shouldn't even be an issue. Math uses shorthands all the time. Imagine writing out "Simplify the following equation such that the variable x is on the left side of the equation and all other terms are on the right" instead of just, "Simplify".

That is because teachers teach students that "simplify" is short for "simplify the ... the right". Students must never forget what simplify stands for. In this case "mate in 3" means "find the three moves that result in checkmate". That most people conveniently read it as "find the least amount of moves reulsting in checkmate. Hint; it's 3 moves long"

To answer Fabianfnas; It doesn't matter at all. i just enjoy the argument. I don't even care if I'm right or not :p