13 Oct '06 18:15>
I am looking at d7 +, Kxp, d8 (kn) + the only two forcing moves but don't see a real continuation after that.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWell thats what I am working on, I gave two checks in a row but thats half my allotment of moves! So it has to be mate in two from the point where I promoted to a knight. It looks like my own pieces get in the way.....
There obviously isn't one. After 2...Ka8, White can't even give check, even if he were allowed two moves in a row unanswered.
Originally posted by sonhouseI didn't find any either. Did you read the part about ep and o-o-o? I think that's the only way to mate in 4.
Well thats what I am working on, I gave two checks in a row but thats half my allotment of moves! So it has to be mate in two from the point where I promoted to a knight. It looks like my own pieces get in the way.....
Originally posted by OrangeKingIn chess problems, en passant is assumed to be illegal, unless it can be proven legal.
Well, if en passant is legal in the position, it's just a fairly simple mate in 2
Originally posted by hypotheticalIt's not wrong. However, a full solution requires a good explanation of the retro analysis.
I was just wondering why David113's first solution wasnt right?
1. dc6 d3
2. O-O-O d2
3. Rd2 Bxe6
4.d7#
I dont see any way out of it. can someone tell me why this is wrong?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemActually, nothing you said makes my statement false. 🙂
Given those conventions, your statement is false.
Originally posted by OrangeKingOriginally posted by OrangeKing
Actually, nothing you said makes my statement false. 🙂
I simply said that if en passant were legal in the position (which you have already stated it is not), this position has a rather elegant mate in two. Had I stated that this position is a mate in two, and that en passant is legal, you'd be absolutely correct that my sta ...[text shortened]... Providing, of course, that we assume the composition is presented correctly, which I do. 🙂
Originally posted by ZeddicusYou can't assume en passant is legal. You have to prove it.
Can someone please explain why this is wrong. I'm sure it is, but can't see why:
Assuming en-passant is legal:
1. d5c6xc5 ***
2. d7 Checkmate
(where *** denotes absolutely any legal move Black can make, and my apologies for not knowing the correct way to denote en-passant capture).
This then makes mate in [b]two, so surely can't be right, so surely en-passant is not inolved?[/b]
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOk, fair enough. But I'm still confused about the mate in 2 being possible when we're asked for a mate in 4. It's almost like a trick question, or is it standard for chess problems to actually mean "n moves or less"??
You can't assume en passant is legal. You have to prove it.
Originally posted by ZeddicusThat's the thing though. You can't correctly claim that a mate in 2 is possible. You can't even consider en passant as your first move until you first establish a way to prove that en passant is legal.
Ok, fair enough. But I'm still confused about the mate in 2 being possible when we're asked for a mate in 4. It's almost like a trick question, or is it standard for chess problems to actually mean "n moves or less"??