Some of Gilbert's very long mate announements:
https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/mate-in-35
We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 3657
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:41 am
- Location: hungary
Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
Yes.
Judit Polgar. She had OTB Elo 2710 - among men chess player. There is no lady with higher Elo.
-
- Posts: 10798
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
About the mate announcements I doubt if all of them are correct.
I found no proof for the mate in 11 claim and I am also practically sure it was impossible without a computer to write a tree that proves the mate.
If somebody has not mate claim but proof that there is a forced mate with the relevant number of moves then it may be interesting to see the proof.
I doubt if it is practically possible to prove the long mate in 35 without a computer only with a pen and paper.
I found no proof for the mate in 11 claim and I am also practically sure it was impossible without a computer to write a tree that proves the mate.
If somebody has not mate claim but proof that there is a forced mate with the relevant number of moves then it may be interesting to see the proof.
I doubt if it is practically possible to prove the long mate in 35 without a computer only with a pen and paper.
-
- Posts: 1010
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:49 pm
Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
I remember Paul Morphy or was that Paulsen who, (according to a newspaper chess column) during a blindfold simul exhibition, announced mate higher than 10 moves.Uri Blass wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:55 am About the mate announcements I doubt if all of them are correct.
I found no proof for the mate in 11 claim and I am also practically sure it was impossible without a computer to write a tree that proves the mate.
If somebody has not mate claim but proof that there is a forced mate with the relevant number of moves then it may be interesting to see the proof.
I doubt if it is practically possible to prove the long mate in 35 without a computer only with a pen and paper.
I told my wife that a husband is like a fine wine; he gets better with age. The next day, she locked me in the cellar.
-
- Posts: 13447
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:02 pm
- Location: Dallas, Texas
- Full name: Matthew Hull
Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?
But there have been chess compositions at depth 11. Some years ago I posted a puzzle from something like a 1910 American Chess Bulletin that had all the pieces on the board. White OR Black to play and mate in 11 moves. The problem was dubbed "The Kaleidoscope".Uri Blass wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:55 am About the mate announcements I doubt if all of them are correct.
I found no proof for the mate in 11 claim and I am also practically sure it was impossible without a computer to write a tree that proves the mate.
If somebody has not mate claim but proof that there is a forced mate with the relevant number of moves then it may be interesting to see the proof.
I doubt if it is practically possible to prove the long mate in 35 without a computer only with a pen and paper.
That's from the early 20th century.
The problem was examined by the Chest problem solver. One of the mates was proved shorter by one move, if memory serves. Pretty amazing.
I still have the American Chess Bulletin with that chess problem. I can reproduce it if anyone cares.
Matthew Hull