05 Jan 11
1 edit
I don't think that there's any way to know that Black *had* to have played what he did on the last turn, since it didn't seem to block any fatal checks.
It just seems right once you've caught the trick by investigating the other checks. So I guess it's a proof by exhaustion, at best.
Edit: Nevermind, I think one could prove directly how the position arose without using exhaustion. So, I redact what I said earlier about not enough information in the statement of the problem. It's just well-nested.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 07
- Moves
- 27751
05 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EinZweiDreiOnce you know there is a mate in one, everything else falls into place around that .. but it wasn't immediately obvious - to me, at least!
I don't think that there's any way to know that Black *had* to have played what he did on the last turn, since it didn't seem to block any fatal checks.
If only there was a similar alert system in real chess :-(
05 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI love these kinds of problems.
Here's a similar problem that I composed.
[fen]8/pb4p1/p7/p5P1/p2pPkrP/3P3p/PPP2p1P/4n1bK b - - 0 1[/fen]
Black to move and mate in 1
But it is really clear, i mean without any doubt, that the mating move is in fact legal?
If black knight was on the d2-square, I wouldn't say anything, but in this position?
Sorry if I've made a mistake, I just glanced at it.
