﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:38 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Apr-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Retro/Math Moves that determine all the previous moves

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5

### Moves that determine all the previous moves

It is known several examples of games that totaly determines by its last move. The longest example is 6.gxf8=N# (found first by Peter Rösler).
For more details see http://wismuth.com/chess/problems-moves.html One can try to construct longer games using fairy pieces.
This is my example with Grasshopper: white plays 7.Gxh1+, how did the game go? As usual, grasshopper is obtained by pawn promotion.
Can anybody construct more longer game with grasshopper or any other fairy unit?

Upd. I am very sorry, my game with 7.Gxh1+ have second solution. But I think my question is interesting.

@Alex: Haven't solved your question (yet), but your question suggests a very cool idea. Not just for fairy PGs, but for *all* PGs.

Normally we stipulate "PG in 17.0" or "PG in 21.5" (depending on whether black or white moves last) along with a diagram. Given that, the side that moves last could make ANY move.

But what if could stipulate "Game after 17...Bxc1" or "Game after 22.Qh5#" with a diagram?? Now we are limiting qualified "games" to those that end with the specified move. This could be an important development! For example: "Game after 22.Qxf8, 3 solutions" could allow for 3 very different "games" where the wQ captures on f8 on move 22 from 3 different squares.

Often, complex PG ideas are difficult (or impossible) to get sound because the last move (or final sequence) "loses the game history". Allowing composers to stipulate the last move (with diagram) opens the door for many possibilities.

Does anyone know if this type of "condition proofgame" has been published? If so, examples please. :-)

Great question, Alex!

@Alex: Haven't solved your problem (yet), but your question suggests a very cool idea. Not just for fairy PGs, but for *all* PGs.

Normally we stipulate "PG in 17.0" or "PG in 21.5" (depending on whether black or white moves last) along with a diagram. Given that, the side that moves last could make ANY move.

But what if could stipulate "Game after 17...Bxc1" or "Game after 22.Qh5#" with a diagram?? Now we are limiting qualified "games" to those that end with the specified move. This could be an important development! For example: "Game after 22.Qxf8, 3 solutions" could allow for 3 very different "games" where the wQ captures on f8 on move 22 from 3 different squares.

Often, complex PG ideas are difficult (or impossible) to get sound because the last move (or final sequence) "loses the game history". Allowing composers to stipulate the last move (with diagram) opens the door for many possibilities.

Does anyone know if this type of "conditional proofgame" has been published? If so, examples please. :-)

Great question, Alex!

Alex's suggestion was quite different I believe. His stipulation (?) does not require a diagram. Given the last move alone, can a unique sequence of moves exist - this is an interesting question though not new, in view of the precedences he cites. What can be the longest such sequence? The answer will be interesting.

Could be that there was some composing in this area in the 1990ies. Don't recall seeing any other than my own with 'two given moves that determine the game'. See e.g. number 0008617 in PDB; note the black Allumwandlung on four different squares. The link here probably functions:

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb

Note that the "#" greatly limits the possibilities.
(Even more limiting would be "=" but show me a stalemate with
unique move order from PAS :-)

Hauke

...well I tested the link to PDB P0008617 before sending, and it seemed to function. Now I have a link that I have tested and seems not to function

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=PROBID='P0008617'

will it then turn out to function? I recall that others have had the same problems to get these links to function.... I give up.

Yet another try: 8.Gxa8#, how did the game go? Is it correct now?
P.S. Link to Per Olin's problem:
http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=%28Probid%3D%27P0008617%27%29+AND+G%3D%27Retro%27

Thank you, Alex, for getting the link to my problem right! - Your question about 8.Gxa8# (=mate by a promoted grasshopper): my intuition, which has many times been wrong, especially concerning fairy pieces but also other pieces, says 'can it really be?'. I recall the composing sessions with standard pieces and can assure that this problem type is extremely prone to dualistic solutions. The mate move 8.Gxa8# gives three moves for the promoted grasshopper to accomplish the mating move. Can it be reached in this way: 1.f4 d6 2.f5 Dd7 3.f6 Kd8 4.fxg7 Sf6 5.g8G Se8 6.Ge6 Sc6 7.Gxc6 - 8.Gxa8#. As grasshoppers are not so familiar to me, please, forgive any misunderstanding.

Thank you, Per! You are right, my problem is cooked. There is several way to fix it.
One is to use extended notation. But I think more natural way is to use Rookhopper(RH) instead of Grasshopper.
Rookhopper moves like Grasshopper but only on rook-lines, and your solution does not work now.
So we have: 8.RHxa8#, how did the game go? May be it's all right now.

Upd. It does not work too. My intention was 1.a4 b5 2.ab5 a5 3.b6 a4 4.bc7 a3 5.cd8=RH ab2
6.Rxa8 Bb7 7.Rxb8 Ba8 8.RHxa8#. But easy second solution exist: 1-5.d2-d6,dc7,cd8=RH 6-7.Qd6,Qxb8 8.RHxa8#

(11) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Feb 26, 2012 10:46]

Francois Labelle and Alain Brobecker did a lot of research on this subject.

See http://wismuth.com/chess/problems-moves.html and http://abrobecker.free.fr/chess/synthetics.htm

The links given by Joost show that both in orthodox and fairy problems much relating to one given move has been examined. Concerning one move, we know that the Rösler achievement can not be surpassed. But with two moves there can still be some composing.

In the latter link of previous message is mentioned my problem from Problemkiste 107, 1996/10 with two given moves ending at the 12th move by black. This has been cooked; as I mentioned earlier in this thread, these are very prone to duals / second solutions. In an article in Problemkiste 114, Dec. 1997, page 155, there was a new try by me to get longest possible game with two moves given. Per Olin, Problemkiste 1997: Find a game with the moves 5.Sc3xTd1 and 12.Df7xTc4# (note how much information there is when giving the full moves including capturing & captured pieces and mate mark). Solution: 1.d4 a5 2.d5 Ta6 3.d6 Txd6 4.Sc3 Txd1 5.Sc3xTd1 d6 6.g4 Kd7 7.g5 Kc6 8.g6 Kb5 9.gxh7 Ka4 10.hxg8D Th4 11.Dxf7 Tc4 12.Df7xTc4#.

As far as I know, this has not yet been cooked and therefore the following task: cook this one and compose a better one!

Nice problem, Per. It looks sound, even when the departure squares are omitted (5.SxTd1 and 12.DxTc4#). In this kind of problems, the less information given, the better (provided it does not lead to cooks).

This reminds me of my own attempt, which was composed some 25 years ago, but published in feenschach around 2001:
6.LxTc4# - construct the game!
I want to believe that the mate position is unique, even if the solution has a few transpositions in the move order.
I used to torture o.t.b. players with it, but problemists should not have much trouble solving it.

I just realized that the full move (12.Df7xTc4#) in Per's problem, is necessary, because just 12.DxTc4# would allow a cook: 8...L/Dd7 9.gxh7 f6/f5 10.hxg8=D Th4 11.Le3 Tc4 12.Dxc4#

I think this attempt is correct: 7. ...Gb3xb7+, how did the game go?

This one is the first that comes my head:
1.e4 b5 2.Ke2 b4 3.Kf3 b3 4.Ba6 bxa2 5.Bb7 axb1=G 6.Ra6 Gb3 7.Rb6 Gb3xb7+

Yes, this is my solution. Very simple but (I hope) unique. I think, using full notation one can construct longer game.
Construct such game using short notation is much more interesting but now I can not do it.
P.S. Realy I am not chess composer at all. I am draughts composer, so this is my first chess composition :)

It is wishful thinking to expect that stipulation by a set of moves (e.g., "Find a game with the moves 5.Sc3xTd1 and 12.Df7xTc4#") will prove resistant to computers.
I calculate more energy will be spent for diminished returns -- primarily heat (entropy).
On the other hand, somebody may keep warm by proving me wrong. :)

@ Kostas (posts 13, 14): Thank you, Kostas, for a nice comment! It is probably possible to leave out the starting square (c3) for the first move. As far as I understand myself, I have probably kept it in this form in order to have consistency in writing the moves. Fully agree with you that the less information there is, the better.

@ Alex (post 15): Congratulations to your fist chess problem, Alex! Your interest in grasshoppers must come from your activities as draughts composer. Can draughts problems be as entertaining as chess problems? I just had a look at one ranked among the ten best draughts problems of all times. It was mentioned in EG January 2012 in the obituary for Jan Voormans (18.6.1944 - 26.11.2011). The problem can be found on Tim Krabbé's website: http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/diary_13.htm, item 252 (this link either functions or it does not).

@ Kevin (post 18): Kevin, I smell a bet in the air! My uneducated guess is that it takes too long for the computer to check this. Interesting situation, but not so uncommon in chess composition: we can't prove that it is correct and we have, so far, not proven that it is incorrect.

>P.S. Realy I am not chess composer at all. I am draughts composer, so this is my first chess composition :)

I thought I was the only one doing both chess and draughts composition (although I heard that Jac Haring also composed draughts problems).