andrew at anselan.com
Tue Dec 1 14:14:30 EST 2009
Thanks for picking this up. The diagram was wrong (sorry), but in trying to repair it I have found a better position:
"#1", "#2", "#3", "#4", "#5", "#6", "#7"
I am aware there should be no short mates in an exact directmate, and that a Tablebase does not pick these up. But Juha has deliberately left the precise terms of the challenge vague.
Maybe this is to foment discord amongst us :o) but I think it's because
he thinks that accidental new interpretations may be fruitful.
He said he used a Tablebase and he said in a separate email to me that he has found a solution n>10 !?! If so, I think it is highly unlikely that he has excluded short mates. If in fact his position does exclude short mates, I am very impressed.
Perhaps Juha can clarify what his position is on short mates in his challenge?
The "infinite challenge" that was discussed earlier is different. Here White can *force* a mate in exactly k moves, for each k. Again short mates may exist *but* White can avoid them.
All the best,
----- Original Message ----
From: Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>
To: retros at janko.at
Sent: Tue, December 1, 2009 3:50:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Retros] Challenge
> "#1", "#2", "#3", "#4", "#5"
How does white deliver mate in 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?
And TB results can't be trusted for exact-# compositions. The move that is indicated #4 may have a defensive move which leads to a #3, which isn't allowed in an exact-# composition, all variations should be of the same length.
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros