I dont see a problem. The OP stated that there is a mate-in-one and if the only solution for that given situation is the 'ep' capture then whites last would have to be e2-e4. Pretty simple really.
i dont have a problem with the puzzle. i just was wondering about his post "anyone wanna have a crack at the construction challenge" does that mean there is proof for e2-e4?
Originally posted by Banana King i dont have a problem with the puzzle. i just was wondering about his post "anyone wanna have a crack at the construction challenge" does that mean there is proof for e2-e4?
As the idea is that you construct the whole game, you would provide your own proof.
The most likely ending I can see, of course, would be Bb7+, e4, dxe3 ep++
i dont get it. the point of this problem was to solve it, not to find ways to prove this problem isn't solvable. u guys dont have to be smart alecky and say, "What if..."
Originally posted by hc1220 i dont get it. the point of this problem was to solve it, not to find ways to prove this problem isn't solvable. u guys dont have to be smart alecky and say, "What if..."
The OP also wrote "As a bonus, construct a valid game ending in the same mating move". That suggested that there is proof that the e.p. is possible. Which isn't the case in all games that can be constructed leading to this position.
The given assumption that there is a mate in one makes it a valid (but very easy) puzzle, the addition of the game construction bonus makes it a very poor puzzle.
Originally posted by Mephisto2 The OP also wrote "As a bonus, construct a valid game ending in the same mating move". That suggested that there is proof that the e.p. is possible. Which isn't the case in all games that can be constructed leading to this position.
The given assumption that there is a mate in one makes it a valid (but very easy) puzzle, the addition of the game construction bonus makes it a very poor puzzle.
I was always told if you have nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all. So all I have to say to mephisto2 is: ' '.
I create a nice simple puzzle, and give what I hoped would be an interesting bonus, but instead get a bunch of criticism, and unhelpful, pedantic criticism at that. Thank you to those who appreciated the puzzle without this proof nonsense. It's nice to see some people take it for what it is, rather than as some attempt to post rubbish.
the problem here simply was, that the "rules" for such puzzles are different. therefore nobody understood the intention you had with your puzzle. when you create a puzzle with en passant, it should be provable, that en passant is legal. people here are perfectionists like that. take it easy, bud 🙂
Originally posted by Andrelious I was always told if you have nothing nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all. So all I have to say to mephisto2 is: ' '.
Sir, I was playing the ball (the puzzle in this case), not the player (you in this case). It was meant as constructive criticism.
Originally posted by Andrelious [fen]2k5/pbp2p2/1p4p1/4p2p/1q1pP3/3P3n/PPP4P/1NQ4K b - e3 0 1[/fen]
Black to move and mate in one.
As a bonus, construct a valid game ending in the same mating move.
Sorry, but the other posters are right; there is no solution to this problem. The convention is that EP is not allowed unless it is PROVABLE that white's last move was a two-square pawn step.
It just so happens I dig construction challenges, so here ya go:
Originally posted by deriver69 I thought it was a good problem. there is no other mate in one so you have to assume e.p is on. I do not see why anyone sees a problem with this.
It's nothing personal. It's convention. Check the FIDE codex for solving if you don't believe me.
This seems a valid game to the actual position. I'm sure it can be made to be a lot shorter to the same position as I wasted a lot of moves with positioning.
Mate in one
26 Jul '10 21:40
Back to Top