Since 12 moves is almost the same as 10 moves, I guess its not a unique solution so is invalid.
Actually it looks like the first move for Black (1...Rg6) in your solution doesn't look like the best as 1...Ra5 holds out longer.
Stockfish doesn't solve this at first. Note white is still winning without this sequence with a +8 advantage, but this line is the fastest win.
The latest Development version of Stockfish from 02/11/2024 (today) finds mate in 12 in 36 seconds on my computer:
Bit miffed that everybody is totally ignoring my post #348.
SF doesn't find mate in 12 at all. It finds a chain of moves of length 12 that finishes in mate.
That's not finding a mate in 12.
SF doesn't solve mates of length 12 unless the possible and plausible moves are very constrained. It just pretends it has.
In some cases it doesn't even find a sequence of 7 moves that teminates in mate from a position where there's a forced mate in 7, as previously documented.
No criticism of SF. It's designed to win against other players and it seems to be pretty good at that.
Meaning it's not forced. But if that's the longest win in the position does it really matter whether it displays m in the evaluation or not?
Stockfish doesn't solve this at first. Note white is still winning without this sequence with a +8 advantage, but this line is the fastest win.
The latest Development version of Stockfish from 02/11/2024 (today) finds mate in 12 in 36 seconds on my computer:
Bit miffed that everybody is totally ignoring my post #348.
SF doesn't find mate in 12 at all. It finds a chain of moves of length 12 that finishes in mate.
That's not finding a mate in 12.
SF doesn't solve mates of length 12 unless the possible and plausible moves are very constrained. It just pretends it has.
In some cases it doesn't even find a sequence of 7 moves that teminates in mate from a position where there's a forced mate in 7, as previously documented.
No criticism of SF. It's designed to win against other players and it seems to be pretty good at that.
Sorry Martin but I didn't know you took a matter of semantics so personally, so you'll have to remain "miffed" at me because I really don't care.
@EndgameEnthusiast2357
Meaning unless you can show a forced mate (as in producing an explicit half tree representing a forced mate or logically proving that such a half tree exists) you don't really know that there is a forced mate (you may have a strong suspicion). SF can't help you. It doesn't generally do solutions and you can't rely on its evaluations for any purpose other than giving the general run of players a pretty good game.
Stockfish doesn't solve this at first. Note white is still winning without this sequence with a +8 advantage, but this line is the fastest win.
The latest Development version of Stockfish from 02/11/2024 (today) finds mate in 12 in 36 seconds on my computer:
Bit miffed that everybody is totally ignoring my post #348.
SF doesn't find mate in 12 at all. It finds a chain of moves of length 12 that finishes in mate.
That's not finding a mate in 12.
SF doesn't solve mates of length 12 unless the possible and plausible moves are very constrained. It just pretends it has.
In some cases it doesn't even find a sequence of 7 moves that teminates in mate from a position where there's a forced mate in 7, as previously documented.
No criticism of SF. It's designed to win against other players and it seems to be pretty good at that.
Sorry Martin but I didn't know you took a matter of semantics so personally, so you'll have to remain "miffed" at me because I really don't care.
You should have seen Aristotles reaction when I left a a trivial first move out of a study and he went ranting about the definitions of compositions vs studies and why our opinions don't matter lol, at least 3 people I've known on this site from a while back seem to be getting very sensitive about chess stuff and technicalities.
Playing chess is one thing, Problems are another. You don't need certainty in the former, but in the latter I think you do.
Appealing to SF doesn't give any certainty.
Actually an awful lot of interesting puzzles in this post and there is certainty. But it doesn't come from SF.
I find this earlier position interesting that stockfish can't solve because the only possible checkmate with those three pieces involves the king being right near the enemy king.
This shows how weak AI actually is..
Stockfish doesn't solve this at first. Note white is still winning without this sequence with a +8 advantage, but this line is the fastest win.
The latest Development version of Stockfish from 02/11/2024 (today) finds mate in 12 in 36 seconds on my computer:
Bit miffed that everybody is totally ignoring my post #348.
SF doesn't find mate in 12 at all. It finds a chain of moves of length 12 that finishes in mate.
That's not finding a mate in 12.
SF doesn't solve mates of length 12 unless the possible and plausible moves are very constrained. It just pretends it has.
In some cases it doesn't even find a sequence of 7 moves that teminates in mate from a position where there's a forced mate in 7, as previously documented.
No criticism of SF. It's designed to win against other players and it seems to be pretty good at that.
Sorry Martin but I didn't know you took a matter of semantics so personally, so you'll have to remain "miffed" at me because I really don't care.
You should have seen Aristotles reaction when I left a a trivial first move out of a study and he went ranting about the definitions of compositions vs studies and why our opinions don't matter lol, at least 3 people I've known on this site from a while back seem to be getting very sensitive about chess stuff and technicalities.
Well I'm certainly the last person who gets sensitive about technicalities. I'm not that "anal retentive" so to speak.
Arikstotle does seem to be over the top sometimes, but it's because he's a composer of studies and they have strict rules that must be followed for compositions. I've gotten an earful from him before also but I know to never take it personally because I'm sure that no malice is meant by him and this is only a mere chess forum and not a competition.
@EndgameEnthusiast2357
Quite simple for humans, but they can prove it works. Even if SF had announced a mate it wouldn't have solved it because there are too many possible bishop moves.
I find this earlier position interesting that stockfish can't solve because the only possible checkmate with those three pieces involves the king being right near the enemy king.
This shows how weak AI actually is..
That looks very similar to a position I posted in this thread here.
Yes that's the one I was talking about just forgot the exact position.
I find this earlier position interesting that stockfish can't solve because the only possible checkmate with those three pieces involves the king being right near the enemy king.
This shows how weak AI actually is..
sf isnt ai
I find this earlier position interesting that stockfish can't solve because the only possible checkmate with those three pieces involves the king being right near the enemy king.
This shows how weak AI actually is..
Here is an amussing mate in 4 for you to try with Stockfish 16. It seems that this one is specific to Stockfish 16 as older versions of Stockfish solve it (or "pretends to solve" it as our good friend Martin would say) with ease:
Oh I looked a few pages back I didn't see it, but yeah I got it from the underpromotion thread.
Fixed it.
And the king has to be on the 8th rank btw, as it stops a win involving queen promotions by blocking the path to the a file.
Stockfish doesn't solve this at first. Note white is still winning without this sequence with a +8 advantage, but this line is the fastest win.
The latest Development version of Stockfish from 02/11/2024 (today) finds mate in 12 in 36 seconds on my computer:
Bit miffed that everybody is totally ignoring my post #348.
SF doesn't find mate in 12 at all. It finds a chain of moves of length 12 that finishes in mate.
That's not finding a mate in 12.
SF doesn't solve mates of length 12 unless the possible and plausible moves are very constrained. It just pretends it has.
In some cases it doesn't even find a sequence of 7 moves that teminates in mate from a position where there's a forced mate in 7, as previously documented.
No criticism of SF. It's designed to win against other players and it seems to be pretty good at that.