Hardest mate in 1 puzzles

aman_makhija

Unless you can find another solution for a mate in 1!

Remellion

Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.

It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

SomethingStranger
Remellion wrote:

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

Ooh, more difficult than I originally thought. Why isn't c6-c5+ viable if white's last move was taking the black rook on c3, placed there much earlier in the game?

BigDoggProblem
aman_makhija wrote:
BigDoggProblem wrote:
aman_makhija wrote:
BigDoggProblem wrote:
aman_makhija wrote:

Try to find it. Here's the answer, highlight to read

1.exf6 e.p.#

But how do you know black's last move was ...f7-f5?

Dude, you have to figure that out. Otherwise how can you do the mate? 

PS. Why did you show my solution?!!

I contend that your problem has no solution. That is why I did not bother to hide it.

Say you walked into a room and two players were playing this position. They've told you it's white to move. Isn't it far more likely that Black's last move was something OTHER than ...f7-f5?

There is no other solution, so you must conclude that enpassant is legal! 

But it makes so much more sense to conclude the composer doesn't know what he's doing.

aman_makhija

I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.

BigDoggProblem
aman_makhija wrote:

I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.

You have not solved it. You must prove beyond any doubt that Black's last move was ...c7-c5, not just assume it.

aman_makhija
BigDoggProblem wrote:
aman_makhija wrote:

I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.

You have not solved it. You must prove beyond any doubt that Black's last move was ...c7-c5, not just assume it.

NO you don't- if there's no other solution that has to be the one!

Unless you can find another solution of course!

Remellion

I could say that the position is already mate since white appears to be in checkmate. There. Mated.

In fact, I'm not asking you to find a move that allows white to deliver mate in 1. I'm asking you if white is in checkmate already or not.

@SomethingStranger: If that was white's last move before ...c6-c5, the bishop on b8 must be promoted. Is there any reason that is possible, or impossible?

finn416
Remellion wrote:

Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.

It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?

 

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

White does, 1.c6#.

finn416
finn416 wrote:
Remellion wrote:

Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.

It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?

 

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

White does, 1.c6#.

Oh wait!!! Whoops, sorry.

finn416
finn416 wrote:
finn416 wrote:
Remellion wrote:

Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.

It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?

 

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

White does, 1.c6#.

Oh wait!!! Whoops, sorry.

Or maybe it is legal. lol

FutureRain
Also composed by me.
BigDoggProblem

FutureRain wrote:

Also composed by me.

The position is not legal.

Remellion

Maybe retros are too hard. I'll make a regular #1. Yep.

Protip: There is only one move that mates in one.

Teddyhead
Remellion wrote:

Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.

It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?

 

Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.

You can not get into this position with any possible series of legal moves, so there is no point in searching for a proof for c7-c5 being the only "legal" preceding move.

BigDoggProblem: As far as I can tell, FutureRain's latest problem exhibits a legal position. (Why wouldn't it?)

finn416
BigDoggProblem wrote:
FutureRain wrote:
 
Also composed by me.

The position is not legal.

How is it not legal?

Remellion

@Teddyhead: My position is legal. What makes you think it is illegal?

newengland7 got BigDogg's problem right.

FutureRain's problem is illegal because the wBf8 must be promoted (the c1-bishop could never have escaped) but white still has all 8 pawns.

Sai
FutureRain wrote:
 
Puzzle composed by me 
never saw such a hard mate in 1 puzzle

Found the move in 1 second and another 4-5 seconds verifying the mate. I solved it in less than 10 seconds. Was it really that hard? Its just mate in one anyway so its probably the hardest among the mate in one puzzles.

Teddyhead
Remellion wrote:

@Teddyhead: My position is legal. What makes you think it is illegal?

newengland7 got BigDogg's problem right.

FutureRain's problem is illegal because the wBf8 must be promoted (the c1-bishop could never have escaped) but white still has all 8 pawns.

In order to get into that position, black pawns must have captured eight pieces from white, including four pawns; and in order to get into such positions that they could have been taken by the black pawns on the board, those white pawns (originating in files e, f, g, and h) would have to have captured at least ten pieces from black, and in this position only six black pieces have been captured. Therefore it's an illegal position.

About FutureRain's problem: you're right about the c1-bishop. That clearly makes it illegal as well.

EDIT: I just realized that of course those white pawns could have been promoted before being captured. So it seems legal, after all. Never mind. :P

Teddyhead
Just testing. Helpmate in 1.