... to all readers... here is the solution of the first 8 moves :
1. Rxa4! Qxa4! 2. Bxa4! Bxa4+! 3. Kc5! Rg5+! 4. Kb4! Rg4+! 5. Kc3!! ( Houdini 3 and other programs plays here the wrong move 5.Ka3? ) Ne7! 6. Qa8+! Kd7! 7.b7! ( many programs don't find this move ) Bc6! 8. b8=N+!! ( with b8=Q ? there is no win for white ) Kd6!
kindly regards from Karlsruhe
... here is the whole story ... ( all worldrecords since 1889 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhCni05-w_c
kindly regards from Karlsruhe
He constructed a puzzle which transposed into a winning 7-piece endgame that require 545 moves.
Also, I checked the 550-move puzzle and it is a draw at move 56. "Author" forgot the 50-move rule.
Also, I checked the 550-move puzzle and it is a draw at move 56. "Author" forgot the 50-move rule.
The author is innocent. His 8 moves are well within the 50-move zone.
Main point is that including long endgame database lines is *not* the correct way to create a puzzle or evaluate position in a study.
I would ask the author to demonstrate his solution from his head by winning it vs strong engine and within FIDE rules, i.e. deliver a checkmate in 50 moves after the last capture or pawn move. I strongly doubt he would achieve that, unlike Otto Blathy, the real record holder, who was able to demonstrate solutions of his long puzzles quite clearly.
I would ask the author to demonstrate his solution from his head by winning it vs strong engine and within FIDE rules, i.e. deliver a checkmate in 50 moves after the last capture or pawn
If you believe that chess puzzles should obey to laws of usefulness for the chess game, then indeed a puzzle like this one should be discarded.
There is however a part of the chess community - described as problemists - to whom the game of chess and its rules are merely a convenient playground for the creation and solving of interesting puzzles. In this strive they allow fairy chess forms with pieces and rules unrecognizable to a regular chessplayer. Even in orthodox chess many of their puzzles are meaningless to game players. Look for instance at the diagrams of most 2- and 3-movers or a retrograde puzzle; absolutely unrealistic.
Chessplayers tend to think that 'endgames' are free from the manipulations by problemists but they are wrong. From the viewpoint of a problemist the 50M rule is a very strange thing. It is alien to all basic chess concepts and was only added to put restrictions on the duration of a chess game. And precisely in a puzzle such a consideration is meaningless so why have an odd 50M rule?
But the universe of problemists is infinitely variable. Most problemists produce puzzles that respect the 50M rule, some do the opposite. Often, puzzles are set up to specifically take advantage of the 50M rule. They wouldn't work if the rule was 49M or 51M or non-existent. All flavors exist, not to please or tease the FIDE but to make good puzzles!
If you believe that chess puzzles should obey to laws of usefulness for the chess game, then indeed a puzzle like this one should be discarded.
There is however a part of the chess community - described as problemists - to whom the game of chess and its rules are merely a convenient playground for the creation and solving of interesting puzzles. In this strive they allow fairy chess forms with pieces and rules unrecognizable to a regular chessplayer. Even in orthodox chess many of their puzzles are meaningless to game players. Look for instance at the diagrams of most 2- and 3-movers or a retrograde puzzle; absolutely unrealistic.
Chessplayers tend to think that 'endgames' are free from the manipulations by problemists but they are wrong. From the viewpoint of a problemist the 50M rule is a very strange thing. It is alien to all basic chess concepts and was only added to put restrictions on the duration of a chess game. And precisely in a puzzle such a consideration is meaningless so why have an odd 50M rule?
But the universe of problemists is infinitely variable. Most problemists produce puzzles that respect the 50M rule, some do the opposite. Often, puzzles are set up to specifically take advantage of the 50M rule. They wouldn't work if the rule was 49M or 51M or non-existent. All flavors exist, not to please or tease the FIDE but to make good puzzles!
I mean it is OK to create puzzles in chess variants, outside of established chess playing rules, but it must be stated in stipulation: beforehand, and described in detail. If nothing such is done, chess playing rules apply as a whole, including the 50-move rule. It goes without saying.
Mr. Neweklowsky goes wrong in several things:
1) He doesn't specify rules exception in stipulation, therefore the 50-move rule makes his "record-breaking" puzzles strictly incorrect.
2) Even if he did, it wouldn't be record in chess as he claims, but only in chess variant.
Moreover:
3) Author of chess problem must be able to demonstrate solution against any possible defence, himself and to the end. It is more than clear Neweklowsky is unable to do so properly, because his brain memory doesn't contain 7-men Nalimov database.
Therefore, Blathy's record stays. Neweklowsky's "records" are mere joke.
Here my worldreord from 2016 : Mate in 553 moves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC3oecykcC8
There is NO 50M rule at FIDE for worldrecords like above
My chessproblems ( over 300 chessproblems WITH 50M rule ) anybody can find at gameknot.
You can klick here and try to solve them directly by clicking :
http://gameknot.com/chess-puzzles.pl?s=0&a=1&u=chesscode&m=0&s=9
kindly regards and have all a nice day with my chesspuzzles
Lutz Neweklowsky
Here my worldreord from 2016 : Mate in 553 moves
There is NO 50M rule at FIDE for worldrecords like above
Actually, because it is a composition, the 50-M rules does not apply (unless you were to present it as a retrograde problem :D).
Tablebase results in themselves are neutral as they could be used both in actual chess games as in compositions and this could render different outcomes. But the verdict on your composed extension is unambiguous - no 50M rule!
Here my worldreord from 2016 : Mate in 553 moves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC3oecykcC8
There is NO 50M rule at FIDE for worldrecords like above
My chessproblems ( over 300 chessproblems WITH 50M rule ) anybody can find at gameknot.
You can klick here and try to solve them directly by clicking :
http://gameknot.com/chess-puzzles.pl?s=0&a=1&u=chesscode&m=0&s=9
kindly regards and have all a nice day with my chesspuzzles
Lutz Neweklowsky
So...
Would you accept a bet?
You will demonstrate your solution: unassisted otb against my chess engine. No problem for a true author, right?
If you accept and deliver checkmate in 553 moves or sooner, I will give you 5000 Euros as a prize, delete my comment, and accept your record as valid.
If you fail, you will pay 5000 Euros to me and quit claiming records, because it means either you aren't true author, or your puzzle is incorrect.
If you reject the bet however, you are expected to quit claiming such records anyway.
You will demonstrate your solution: unassisted otb against my chess engine. No problem for a true author, right?
I'll have the author respond to your bet for himself. Going on the general reasoning though, your standard would disqualify a number of modern endgame compositions (of moderate length). It is permitted today to have certain parts of a study solution checked against a tablebase and accepts its verdict without questioning it and without understanding it. Usually it happens not in the main line but in a try or to refute a try but such is not mandatory. The difference between these compositions and Moreover's worldrecord is not in the principle but in the percentages the tablebase contributes to the total. Furthermore, a tablebase or its programmers are never considered authors of a position or result generated by the tablebase. Most tablebase analysis is unsuitable as endgame study or problem anyway. This is the point where Moreover's study/problem is probably vulnerable. I doubt there is a solution line of 553 moves where white has only one correct move choice at every junction. And this is required for a standard composition. So we might eventually have to conclude that the problem is the only member in its own composition category and therefore automatically holder of every thinkable record in it!
Going on the general reasoning though, your standard would disqualify a number of modern endgame compositions (of moderate length). It is permitted today to have certain parts of a study solution checked against a tablebase and accepts its verdict without questioning it and without understanding it.
...
This is a direct checkmate puzzle, not a study, therefore author is expected to demonstrate the whole solution himself. Actually, I am accepting easier way for him: demostrate a single winning line against defence generated by a strong engine. I am demanding him to do so from his own head, because there is no doubt true record holder O. Blathy would have been able to do so.
The 50 move rule, and similar rules, exist otherwise chess would not be a "closed" game - it could go on, ike US Baseball, forever. The 50 move rule provides closure.
Ah, but because a similar rule does exist - triple repetition - the 50 move rule is not required to close the game and that is why it could be (and is) cancelled for compositions!
And even with 50M and 3R rules a game could go on forever. Just refuse to play the next move (has been known to happen). Ultimately the 'clock rules' provide real closure irrespective of the game rules. One of the interesting differences between 'games' and 'compositions'.
By the way, tennis could use some closure from a '50-game rule' as well: Isner–Mahut, Wimbledon 2010, fifth set: 70–68.
I did think of this, but I am not sure that intuitionistic logic would permit a prove to replace the construction of a solution to get rid of an infinity. That might lose FIDE some supporters.
Anyway, by the current rules, the 3R-rule is the only one stopping infinity from all positions forward (if no 50M/75M). Since it does have additional use as well , there is no need to replace it.
Well you don't actually get rid of the infinity. I'm also not sure about how that would work in Brouwerian logic; I'll think about it, but in any case if it lost FIDE supporters they'd only be fruitcakes.
I was only suggesting it could be dropped from composition rules (and that would be more consistent with dropping the n move rules), not the FIDE rules. Are compositions also managed by FIDE?
For normal chess it certainly does have its uses. If I lose the plot practicing a long knnkp against the computer the most likely result is a concrete occurrence of a 3-R draw (as opposed to a 3-R draw by the pigeon hole principle somewhere near the end of the universe).
Well you don't actually get rid of the infinity. I'm also not sure about how that would work in Brouwerian logic; I'll think about it, but in any case if it lost FIDE supporters they'd only be fruitcakes.
I was only suggesting it could be dropped from composition rules, not the FIDE rules (and that would be more consistent with dropping the n move rules). Are compositions also managed by FIDE?
For normal chess it certainly does have its uses. If I lose the plot practicing a long knnkp against the computer the most likely result is a concrete occurrence of a 3-R draw (as opposed to a 3-R draw by the pigeon hole principle somewhere near the end of the universe).
Neither 50M nor 3R will be completely dropped from composition rules unless forced by changes in FIDE game rules. Retrograde composers are very happy with these weirdo rules! But they may be dropped for the other areas.
Since the number of different chess positions is finite, it is inevitable that some positions will start repeating (increasingly) when we continue playing. It leads to closure because the repetition rule for compositions is automatic. The draw need not be claimed.
The interesting thing is that while only a small (but well respected) section of logicians are intuitionists, our population at large is 90% intuitionistic on a psychological level (a loose interpretation of the logical difference). They don't care about proofs, they demand the observables. They'd rather see two players sweat for 200 moves and conclude it goes nowhere, than have an abstract decision tree showing that no-one can win. Therefore I believe that FIDE will always go for a tangible closure condition rather than a mathemetical proof. Not that I am taking a position in this!
I meant well respected fruitcakes, of course.
As for watching players sweat it out and concluding it goes nowhere, chess players should know better. If they were to watch me playing queen against Nalimov's two knights, they could well conclude that this endgame is invariably drawn, but Nalimov, at least, does not agree.
(Non too sure about your loose interpretation by the way, but that's probably best left for a different forum.)
...the solution of my mate in 550 you can find here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_jEhgRAxoE
(the music is by Blood,Sweat and Tears)
...but in 2013 I composed a chess problem with 1 move more :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLiwJ3qe_M
Who can solve here the first 8 moves ?