8/8/2k5/3N4/8/4N1p1/4Kprp/B5bn w - - 0 1Michel wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 12:01 pmOf course. I am just surprised that someone without a computer could produce a seemingly optimal solution....peter wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:04 amWell, I'd say, that's what I already did here, cause the official solution isn't very diferent at all to freezer's one to me, as for the way of forcing the mate, except that another one possible mating field is chosen. Have a closer look at the two solution- lines:
http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 75#p886675
Bu maybe you mean, to give in each move of author's solution into database, of course I could try this too, but it would take some time having to read out 46 moves of one .pgn and give them in manually into board of database. When I'll find time for that, I'll give it a try and return.
Don't know when but till then regards
1.Kf1 ...Kd6!? (#44) (...Kc5 #45 2.Be5 Kb5 3.Nc3?! #46 ((Nf5 #44)) 2.Bd4 Kc6 3.Nc3!? (#44 3.Nb4 #43) Kd6 !?(#42, ...Kc7 #43) 4.Nc4 Ke6(?! # 37 ...Kd6 #41) 5.Be5 Kd7 6. Na5 Ke6 7.Bb8 Kd7 8.Nd5 ?!(#35 Na4 #33) ... Ke6 !?(# 32 ...Kc8 #34) 9.Nb6 Kf5 10.Nac4 ?! (#34 Nb3 #31)
Here Black had decided to move to King's side, White could have mated shorter then but in author's solution yet at King's side too, but obviously he gave away the two moves later on with Black again. With 10.Nb3 instead of Nac4 3 moves could have been spared, as much as that had been given away at first 10 moves.
It got too boring and time consuming for me here cause you already see, without engine Seoane didn't really make it to find the very best and shortest way with best moves from both sides neither and ended up with same 46 moves DTM more or less luckily.
But this isn't a mate in x-problem, it's a study, you see?
So the DTM doesn't matter at all, 50 moves boundary doesn't count as for studies neither, so what?
If you still find it amazing to find a correct (even if not quite correct as for 2 or three moves DTM) way to mate without engine at all, you just haven't understood the principles the mating lines follow as well as Seoane did back in 1922.
Nevermind, neither have I (fully) regards