Can you checkmate this in 20 secs?

Sort:
Arisktotle
MARattigan schreef:

In the above diagram after 1.Bc7+ you would regard 1...Kc8 and 1...Ke8 as equally accurate, and the first leads to the mate shown. If distance to mate is ignored then one can argue that if Black plays 1...Ke8 then White can mate him (sometime, somewhere) and he is therefore forced to play 1.Kc8, making the position I showed a forced mate, but it wouldn't be regarded as such by the community at large.    

I would first of all say that the concept of "accuracy" is meaningless here, unless there is a threat to collide with 50M or the skill level of the white player is in question. Black might play ..Kc8, ..Ke8 but also ..Kc7, ..Ke1, resign, walk off, slap the pieces off the board, all with the same outcome.

When two moves are equal in some respect - here accuracy - does not imply they are equal in all other respects - like forcing mates -, in the same way that two women considered equally beautiful does not imply that they have the same hair colour.

Actually, the losing side will never be interested in the "accuracy" of prolonging the game but instead attempt to lure his opponent into making a mistake. Rather play a move that enables white to mate in 5 but also to make a stalemate error, than fight on for 20 moves without another such chance. This is the never ending discussion on the Daily Puzzle (that's how low we sunk). Whenever the DP editor selects a black defense which allows a nice mate, they are criticized as black could have escaped by sacriicing a rook. This is ridiculous. Black will lose anyway in a normal course of events but he may get lucky if white misses the single opportunity to checkmate. White would get tons of opportunities to win with the rook up.

As an illustration a variation on your diagram:

MARattigan

Arikstotle wrote:

Actually, the losing side will never be interested in the "accuracy" of prolonging the game but instead attempt to lure his opponent into making a mistake. Rather play a move that enables white to mate in 5 but also to make a stalemate error, than fight on for 20 moves without another such chance. 

I totally agree that this is the better strategy in a game of chess (in this endgame particularly). but ...

Whenever the DP editor selects a black defense which allows a nice mate, they are criticized as black could have escaped by sacriicing a rook.

I also sympathise with the criticisms, because a puzzle is not a game of chess.

I like the position by the way. I'm working on a Wikipedia update to this endgame and was planning to include a counterpart to the "stalemate trap" with pieces reversed but this one is nicer than the one I came up with. Would it be OK to include it in my update? I could give an attribution but I don't know whether "Arikstotle" would be the best - do you publish under the same pseudonym?

Arisktotle
MARattigan schreef:

Whenever the DP editor selects a black defense which allows a nice mate, they are criticized as black could have escaped by sacriicing a rook.

I also sympathise with the criticisms, because a puzzle is not a game of chess.

I like the position by the way. I'm working on a Wikipedia update to this endgame and was planning to include counterpart to the "stalemate trap" with pieces reversed but this one is nicer than the one I came up with. Would it be OK to include it in my update? I could give an attribution but I don't know whether "Arikstotle" would be the best.

No attribute required; it is too simple. I saw a stalemate somewhere that occurred in an actual game (where the bishop was attacked) and succeeded in improving it slightly with an extra stalemate move.

The issue with the DP is that it is a mix between problem and game logic. You first have to guess what you are solving and what the goal is. That is why problemists require fixed goals.

MARattigan
Arisktotle wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
I like the position by the way. I'm working on a Wikipedia update to this endgame and was planning to include counterpart to the "stalemate trap" with pieces reversed but this one is nicer than the one I came up with. Would it be OK to include it in my update? I could give an attribution but I don't know whether "Arikstotle" would be the best.

No attribute required; it is too simple. I saw a stalemate somewhere that occurred in an actual game (where the bishop was attacked) and attempted to improve it slightly with an extra stalemate move.

I agree it's fairly simple and would understand that you may prefer not to have an attribution for that reason.

But it's no more or less simple than the counterpart that appears on the Wikipaedia site here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_and_knight_checkmate#A_stalemate_trap

My draft update includes a similar position among a list of example drawn positions. It would sit more comfortably as an extension to the section linked to above, but under the Wikipedia guidelines I can't do that without an attribution.

So my question now is: Does, "No attribute required" mean simply that or also, "No attribution please"? 

sameez1

Kd6 black responds Rg6 check, there is no mate in 2 Kd6 has to be one of whites worse moves

MARattigan
sameez1 wrote:

Kd6 black responds Rg6 check, there is no mate in 2 Kd6 has to be one of whites worse moves

Hint: Why isn't 1.Ba2 mate in 1?

Arisktotle
MARattigan schreef:

My draft update includes a similar position among a list of example drawn positions. It would sit more comfortably as an extension to the section linked to above, but under the Wikipedia guidelines I can't do that without an attribution.

So my question now is: Does, "No attribute required" mean simply that or also, "No attribution please"? 

I suggest you attribute it to yourself (or *unknown*), I don't want it. It is not a real problem and I find it strange that Wikipedia would require a source.

n9531l

" sameez1 wrote:

Kd6 black responds Rg6 check, there is no mate in 2 Kd6 has to be one of whites worse moves

Sameez1, just curious, how long did you think before posting your comment?

If you were playing as Black, after 1.Kd6 Rg6+ 2.Be6#, what would you say to your opponent?

Arisktotle

'Oops! Dinner?' but I'm not sameez1.

sameez1

Do not know how I did not see that.Looked at Kd6 first dismissed as moving into check then  brain freeze oops

fusyon

easily