Mate in 0

Originally posted by pootstick
I get that even though this is a 'joke' problem, it's flawed because there is required onus of proof that the board is reversed.

But I don't understand why e.p. isn't held to the same onus of proof that it is or isn't possible in a given situation.
Just curious.

edit: the first line quoted is from fabianfas.
edit: all the bold's got mixed up.

But I don't understand why e.p. isn't held to the same onus of proof that it is or isn't possible in a given situation.
Just curious.

En passant does require proof. Generally, you must show that the other side has just advanced the requisite pawn two squares. For example:


White mates in 1

Black's last move must have been ...b7-b5. None other is possible. White may play 1.axb6#.

It gets more complicated if ep gets tangled up with castling rights. See the Langstaff problem I posted, and sdrawkcab's link to the FIDE codex.

In the mate in 0 by OP, I deliberately broke convention and used ep without the requisite proof because the composer had already broken convention and turned the board without proof.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Guys, this is a joke problem, there is not any serious about it.
Does it really merit a rising conflict?
Can't we just laugh about it and be friends?

Who are you to tell others what they must and must not take seriously?

Originally posted by SwissGambit


En passant does require proof. Generally, you must show that the other side has just advanced a two squares.

Okay, thanks. Seems slightly arbitrary though, if it doesn't require proof of ep not being possible. i.e. in the original problem with extra white piece placed on h2.

Originally posted by pootstick
Okay, thanks. Seems slightly arbitrary though, if it doesn't require proof of ep not being possible. i.e. in the original problem with extra white piece placed on h2.

In my analysis of the original problem, I deliberately broke convention. Normally, Black would not be able to play ep simply because the last move could have been h3-h4+.

Right, points taken, let me try to rephase what I meant, because somehow I still don't think you realise why I plunged into this head first without thinking first;

In mathematics most short-hands (I like to think all, but I haven't seen all math) are logical. Logical in a sense that they are abbreviations.

Reading your post, SwissGambit, I understood that "Mate in 3" meant something else than what I'd expect from it.

I had never read the definition of "Mate in 3" (my fault of course) but I took it as a mathematical question; Find the three subsequent moves for white wich lead to checkmate, regardless of what black does. In my experience, the only right answer to such a question would be exactly three moves for white.

At that point I responded to your post. Whatever arrogance you (wanted to) read in that was not my intention. In mathematics I stand my ground, but in chess I (usually) leave discussions for better players.

Since no arrogance on my end was intended, your responses were completely over the top in my opinion. All went downhill from that. Seeing how you didn't try to prevent that, you're as guilty as me for the pointless discussion. You even went out of your way to try to insult me, justifying it with "you can dish it out, but can't take it". Well, I certainly didn't insult anyone (I hope) and I certainly didn't try to. What I'm saying is that your insults came out of nowhere as far as I can see.

To get back to the reason I post this; I have a problem/question with/about the definition.

SwissGambit said that for 'his' Mate in 3, most answer you would get would be a mate in 2, since no mate in 3 is possible.

I said all those answers would be wrong. Why did you (SwissGambit) and Kevin get so worked up about it? Mathematically seen, an answer different from a 3 move solution is not what the composer asked for, and thus not the right answer. Indeed, the composer made an unsound problem (I have read up on that, thanks for the link Kevin), and even asks for the impossible in the example SwissGambit provided, but even a wrong question is a question (an expression in y is not the right answer if an expression in x is requested, even if an expression in x cannot be made).

I hope I managed to explain myself, instead of making things worse :p

To make sure;
- No insults intended, I apologise I any are detected.
- I am serious about my question, I want a serious answer.
- No arrogance intended.

Originally posted by TheMaster37
Right, points taken, let me try to rephase what I meant, because somehow I still don't think you realise why I plunged into this head first without thinking first;

In mathematics most short-hands (I like to think all, but I haven't seen all math) are logical. Logical in a sense that they are abbreviations.

Reading your post, SwissGambit, I understo ...[text shortened]... m serious about my question, I want a serious answer.
- No arrogance intended.

I had never read the definition of "Mate in 3" (my fault of course) but I took it as a mathematical question; Find the three subsequent moves for white wich lead to checkmate, regardless of what black does. In my experience, the only right answer to such a question would be exactly three moves for white.

If you have really never seen a flawed problem [short solutions, or no solution] then your experience is quite limited. My counter-example showed this. That should have been red flag #1.

At that point I responded to your post. Whatever arrogance you (wanted to) read in that was not my intention.[/b]

"And they'd all be wrong." That's what you wrote. Not just, "Doesn't Mate in 3 mean exactly three moves?". Not just, "I thought short solutions were not permitted." Your version sounds arrogant; the other 2 do not.

Since no arrogance on my end was intended, your responses were completely over the top in my opinion.

It's your responsibility as a writer to make your meaning and tone clear. Your audience can't read your mind; they can only read your words. Since the tone of your words was arrogant, you either were arrogant and are now lying about it, or you failed to convey your intended tone.

All went downhill from that.

I was fine with the discussion. The reason it went downhill for you is because you stuck to your false claims even after they had been refuted.

Seeing how you didn't try to prevent that, you're as guilty as me for the pointless discussion.

I don't think it was pointless, and I don't feel guilty in the slightest. I thought it was educational for those who wanted to understand some of the conventions used in chess problems, and why they came to be conventions.

SwissGambit said that for 'his' Mate in 3, most answer you would get would be a mate in 2, since no mate in 3 is possible.

I said all those answers would be wrong. Why did you (SwissGambit) and Kevin get so worked up about it?

Because I was trying to show you [using several different methods] why your assertion was wrong.

Mathematically seen, an answer different from a 3 move solution is not what the composer asked for, and thus not the right answer.

"Right" is the wrong word; "intended" is the right one. If a math teacher's problem is flawed, and the student finds a better answer than the intent [or finds an alternate answer when the intended solution is flawed], the student is right and the teacher is wrong.

even a wrong question is a question (an expression in y is not the right answer if an expression in x is requested, even if an expression in x cannot be made).

That is analogous to a chess problem with no solution. In that case, there is no 'right' answer. The best the solver can do is claim, "No solution".

- I am serious about my question, I want a serious answer.

Which question?

- No arrogance intended.

Very well. I also want to point out that I did attempt to teach you in this thread from the beginning. I'm always happy to help explain things about chess problems.

"Right" is the wrong word; "intended" is the right one. If a math teacher's problem is flawed, and the student finds a better answer than the intent [or finds an alternate answer when the intended solution is flawed], the student is right and the teacher is wrong.

I thought you'd might draw the parallel with a math problem here. I have thought about this.

If one of my questions/problems to the students was flawed, I'd do several things. If the students didn't notice, I'd apologise and correct the question/problem.

If I didn't notice until after the students gave their answers I'd apologise. I'd also tell them that their answers were wrong (and explain why) but give them full credit for the question. I would be wrong, but they weren't right either.

I feel the same about chessproblems. If a mate in three is what is requested then either give a mate in 3 or say the required mate in 3 is not available.

The arrogance you read in my first post ehre was annoyance with the way people disregard what is asked and expect to be credited for giving the right answer. Perhaps they should word their answer as "What you ask is impossible. I did, however find a mate in 2. Is that what you meant?". That is much clearer than "This is the mate in 2".

I could have worded my response better, but you as audience also have a responsibility to read my words for what they are. You read arrogance (understandably) where annoyance should have been read. With that in mind you didn't hesitate to mock me (justified IF I had been arrogant), and that is what I felt insulted about. No harm done further.

To make it clear; I have no problems with you. I didn't a month ago and I still don't now.

I consider myself lucky to have never seen a flawed problem. In an ideal world no-one should have to see one :p

Originally posted by TheMaster37
[b]"Right" is the wrong word; "intended" is the right one. If a math teacher's problem is flawed, and the student finds a better answer than the intent [or finds an alternate answer when the intended solution is flawed], the student is right and the teacher is wrong.

I thought you'd might draw the parallel with a math problem here. I have thought ...[text shortened]... er seen a flawed problem. In an ideal world no-one should have to see one :p[/b]

If I didn't notice until after the students gave their answers I'd apologise. I'd also tell them that their answers were wrong (and explain why) but give them full credit for the question. I would be wrong, but they weren't right either.

Yes, they are right. It is absurd to say otherwise. Telling a student (s)he is wrong when (s)he successfully busts a problem comes off as a cheap attempt by the teacher to save face, or hold on to authority. If the solver's logic is sound, and they show that the problem is faulty, they are to be commended, not labeled 'wrong'.

I feel the same about chessproblems. If a mate in three is what is requested then either give a mate in 3 or say the required mate in 3 is not available.

Again, refer to the FIDE codex - problemists don't share your view. Nobody wants to see a Mate in X problem where White deliberately plays weak moves to extend the mate. See Thread 80626 for a good example.

Perhaps they should word their answer as "What you ask is impossible. I did, however find a mate in 2. Is that what you meant?". That is much clearer than "This is the mate in 2".

The best response is "The problem is cooked - Mate in 2 is possible." This informs everyone that the problem is flawed.

I consider myself lucky to have never seen a flawed problem. In an ideal world no-one should have to see one :p

Sometimes, there is no reward without risk. When a composer tries to show a deep or grandiose idea, the resulting problem is often beyond the power of computers to solve. It falls to human testers to verify its soundness. Some get cooked, but the composer manages to fix the flaws, resulting in a sound problem that everyone can enjoy.