|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
| (81) Posted by Bojan Basic [Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010 05:50] |
Cooked: 1.Ke8 2.Bh3 3.Bf1+! Rxf1! 4.g2 5.gxf1Q+ Kb3 6.Qb1+ Kc4 7.Qb3+ Kxb3 8.Kd7 e8R.
|
|
| (82) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 3, 2010 21:14] |
@Bojan:
There's also 3.Bf1+ Rxf1 4.g2 5.gxf1B+ Kb3 6.Bg2 7.Bd5+ Bxd5 8.Kd7 e8R~x. Looks like the bB must be nailed down. Back to the drawing board!
|
|
| (83) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010 10:04] |
Add a black rook on d8?
|
|
| (84) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010 18:58] |
Cant see how adding black rook on d8 helps. It seems that both cooks pointed out will remain.
|
|
| (85) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010 19:48] |
Black doesn't have to capture after the last move in the cooks if there's an extra rook on d8.
|
|
| (86) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Aug 4, 2010 22:15]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [10-08-04] |
The black bishop on c8 disappears in the cooks. This should be added.
However, I can imagine cooks with bKc6 and wRd7, although I can't add one now (maybe Rg1 -> g4, Kc4 -> b3, sacrificing wB on c6, promoting to rook and playing the new wR to d7 - does this work in time?)
EDIT: 1.g2 Rxg2 2.Kc6 Rg4+! 3.Kd7 Bc6+ 4.Kxc6 Kb3 5.Kd7 exd8R+ 6.Kc6 Rd7 - or am I overlooking something?
And for the original position it also should work: 1.g2 Rxg2 2.Kc6 Rg4+! 3.Kd7 Bc6+! 4.Kxc6 Kb3 5.Kd7 e8R 6.Kc6 Rf8 (or any other waiting move) 7.Bf5 Rd8 8.Bc8 (or Bd7) Rd7
EDIT2: Nevermind! I didn't notice the Parry condition!
|
|
| (87) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Aug 5, 2010 03:58]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-08-05] |
@Joost & Seetharaman: The bRd8 idea causes other problems like: 1.Ke8 3.Rc1+ Rxc1 5.g1Q 7.Qb3+ Kxb3 8.Kd7 e8R~x. Good try, though. :-) Still working on a fix.
@Siegfried: Don't mind the Parry stip; you may be on the verge of an entirely new idea. :-)
EDIT: How about this, which uses the "caged Rook" idea:
 (= 5+8 )
pser-h~x8 (5+8) C- [parry-series help CapZug in 8]
1.Ka8 3.Bf1+! Rxf1! 5.gxf1B+ Kh4 7.Bc8 8.Kb7 a8R~x
The Ph7 stops a couple of cooks lines such as 1.Ka8 3.Bf1+ and now: 3...Bg2 5.Bc8 6.Kb7 7.h4 8.h5 a8R~x, OR 3...Kxg3 5.Bc8 6.Kb7 7.h4+ Kxh4 8.h5 a8R~x.
@Bojan & Geoff: Any idea how to setup the SStipulation to TEST this?
|
|
| (88) Posted by Bojan Basic [Thursday, Aug 5, 2010 11:20]; edited by Bojan Basic [10-08-05] |
Cooked in 6: 1.R*d7 2.Rd4+ K*g3 3.Bh3 4.Rg4+ K*h3 5.Rh4+ K*h4 6.Ka8 Rb1.
QUOTE
@Bojan & Geoff: Any idea how to setup the SStipulation to TEST this?
I have an idea, but the command is very long—and unfortunately, sstipulation length is limited to 39 characters. I have no idea why, but I believe that this dates back to times when sstipulation hadn’t been introduced, and Popeye team set this limit of stipulation length simply because there were no ordinary stipulations of 40 or more characters in length. If I am right, then it would be a matter of seconds to correct this limit in Popeye source code—but we have to ask Popeye development team to do this.
|
|
| (89) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Aug 5, 2010 23:33]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-08-05] |
@Bojan: Good eye! Of course, easily fixed by (eg.) +bPb3/+wPb2. Or maybe just +wPb2?
EDIT: +wPb2 doesn't help due to 1.Rxd7 2.Rd2+ Kxg3 3.Rxb2 4.Bh3 5.Rg2+ Kxh3 7.Rh4+ Kxh4 8.Ka8 Rb1~x. So... both +bPb3 and +wPb2 are needed.
39 is a curious number indeed. The try of "black 8phser (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~)" is 32. But since "pser" and "phser" do not work in SStip, the 'correct' method would surely surpass 39.
|
|
| (90) Posted by Bojan Basic [Friday, Aug 6, 2010 00:22] |
QUOTE
So... both +bPb3 and +wPb2 are needed.
A similar cook still works: 1.R*d7 2.Rd8+ K*g3 3.Rd3+ Kh4 4.Rd4+ K*h5 5.Bg4+ R*g4 6.Rd5+ Rg5 7.Rb5 8.Ka8 R*b5.
|
|
| (91) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Aug 6, 2010 21:41] |
@Bojan:
Instead of +bPb3/+wPb2, I believe +bPe6/+wPe5 plugs up that cook line for good.
However, here is perhaps a more interesting presentation:
 (= 7+7 )
pser-h~x8 (7+7) C- [parry-series help CapZug in 8]
1.Ba5 2.g6+ Kh4! 3.Be1+! Rxe1! 4.f2 5.fxe1B+! Kg5! 6.Ba5 7.Bd8+ e7 8.Kc7 exd8R~x
The Rh1/Ph2 keeps the Bg1 at bay. The Ph6/Ph7 forces the wK to end up at g5. That, in turn, forces 5.fxe1B+! (5.fxe1Q+?) so that Ba5 (Qa5?) is NOT check.
|
|
| (92) Posted by Bojan Basic [Sunday, Aug 8, 2010 09:04] |
QUOTE
Instead of +bPb3/+wPb2, I believe +bPe6/+wPe5 plugs up that cook line for good.
But there is another (in 7 moves): 1.g2 2.Ka8 3.Rb7 4.Rb3+ K*g2 5.Rb2+ Kh3 6.Rb3+ Kh4 7.Rb7 B*c6.
I see no cooks for the new presentation.
|
|
| (93) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Aug 8, 2010 15:51]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-08-08] |
@Bojan: Another nice find! The "caged Rook" has proven to be quite the nuisance. :-)
It dawned on me that wPh6/bPh7 is not needed in the new presentation. The sequence 5.fxe1Q+? Kg5 6.Qa5+ and now: 6...Bc5? frees Rh1, and 6...Kxg6? 7.Qd8 is NOT check.
So... this more economical setting should work fine:
 (= 6+6 )
pser-h~x8 (6+6) C- [parry-series help CapZug in 8]
1.Ba5 2.g6+ Kh4! 3.Be1+! Rxe1! 4.f2 5.fxe1B+! Kg5! 6.Ba5 7.Bd8+ e7 8.Kc7 exd8R~x
|
|
| (94) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, Aug 17, 2010 10:25] |
I've just downloaded the latest version of a certain database, and found that it contains all of the problems in this thread! There is a cook in 6 moves: 1.g6+ Kxg6 2.Bb6 3.Bxg1 4.f2 5.Kd8 6.Ke8 e7.
|
|
| (95) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Aug 18, 2010 11:59] |
Thanks for the update, Geoff! Unfortunately, WC cooked my 4-Bishop-promotion idea as well:
3...Sxf2 5...Sg5 6...c3 8.Kg1-h1 Sg1~x
I believe both are fixable, though. Will post an update soon.
|
|
| (96) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 15:36] |
Geoff was kind enough to test this (C+) for the last 6 moves:
 (= 3+6 )
h~x8 (3+6) C- [help CapZug in 8]
1.f1B Bg8! 2.Bd3 cxd3 3.g1B dxc4 4.Bb6 c5 5.h1B cxb6 6.Ba8 b7 7.h2 bxa8Q 8.h1B Qg2~x
Still working on a fix for the pser-h~x8.
|
|
| (97) Posted by Bojan Basic [Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 16:12]; edited by Bojan Basic [10-08-21] |
The first White move is unnecessary (that is, could be any tempo move as well).
|
|
| (98) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 21:45] |
@Bojan: Actually, 1...Bg8! shields the bK from check after 7...bxa8Q.
|
|
| (99) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Friday, Sep 17, 2010 16:33] |
After re-reading the whole thread (motivated by appearance of WCCC tourney dedicated to CapZug at http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/files/wccc_2010_goodzug_announcement.pdf), I still have a question.
Is a stalemate situation also a CapZug? I believe it fulfills both conditions as stated - as there are no moves available to side on-move, it is true that it has only capturing moves available (as there are none available) and naturally, there is no check.
Having checked the following position...
BeginProblem
Stipulation SStipulation white 3h (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~))
Pieces
White Ke7 Pg7
Black Kg2
EndProblem
... it is clear that Popeye looks also for the existence of at least one move in CapZug position - also Kxg2 is listed and stalemate solution by queen promotion is not found. Then, shouldn't be the definition amended to say:
The aim of CapZug has been met when the side on-move:
(1) CAN MOVE, but it has only capture moves available; AND
(2) is NOT in check.
(Or in similar fashion, if your intention is to exclude stalemates.)
|
|
| (100) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Sep 17, 2010 20:36] |
@Juraj,
I think the stated definition is clear enough: stalemate is not CapZug. Perhaps "capture moves" should more accurately be "capture move(s)" to cover a single-capture CapZug.
I plan to post the WCCC-53 link under the Competitions forum shortly.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
ISC 2024
