There are plenty of chess programs for replaying games and exploring alternatives, does anyone know of one which can be used for (or modified to suit) Gothic Chess?

Would it be at all possible to have a mating pattern named after someone? Here's a game I played against an unknown USCF 1600 rated player outside the 2001 North American Open. I think that my mate in this game is rather unique. The time control was G/30 here are the moves:

1. f4 f5
2. Nh3 Nh6
3. e3 g6
4. g3 e5
5. Nc3 Bf6
6. Bd5 Ae7
7. Bb3 c6
8. Ae2 d5
9. d4 exd4
10. exd4 Qb6 (to bait White into Castling)
11. O-O Ng4
12. Cd3 Cg7
13. a4 Ch5
14. a5 Qc7
15. Qe1 Ci5
16. NxC Bxj2+
17. Kj1 Nxh2+
18. RxN Ai3++

Granted the play here wasn't of the highest caliber; but I had only played a handful of Gothic games at this point. Still I feel this game illustrates some of the tactical richness possible to Gothic Chess.

*prays*
thank you for causing me to finish said article for Ed yesterday, so that I can rub it into his face today :P

65: Yes its done, and I'm going to mail it to you RTFN, with some notes included for your eyes only. You will also need to verify the reference to Capablanca chess. I have something to do here... boss is jumping up and down already.

I am still looking for you article for the Guest Writer position for this month. Have you put anything together yet?

i concur with whisperz. You will have trouble maintaining that database. Trust me, Im still working on the 3000 odd openings for regular chess after 3 years.

I think (hope?) you are going to have your work cut out keeping up ... you have set a high standard to start.

The web page is now up but not linked to the rest of the webste yet:

Openings

Let me know what you think.

--Ed

You forgot my trident variation used in Streetman's game. :)

Looks like a winner ... keep up the good work :)

I think we might as well start naming them here. I used to "cater" to the chess crowd and adopted some names with chess counterparts, like the Pirc-Kahn Defense, since it would be apparent to a chess player what motifs have been transplanted.

How about we do this: instead of people jsut sending in concocted moves and posting them here, how about we derive names from their current games on BrainKing as a basis?

There is one opening that I have labeled "Trice's Gambit", which is a little unsound, but interesting. Maybe I will make a web page that everyone can look at, then we can discuss the information on the website here.

Does that sound like a good idea?

The names on the website are subject to change based on popular feedback.

More on this later.

--Ed

Ed, I agree that it wouldn't be unique or appropriate enough to use names from standard chess, as you point out. I was only using those terms as an example. Of course, the players of gothic would surely be pleased to have a sequence of moves with their names associated with it. I sure would.

What are some of the current names so far? Where could we see them listed or described?

Yes there have been, especially among the Indian type openings. I think the names should bear the trademark of the person who forges the system, and I do not think we should call them by their chess equivalents (like the Gothic Reti of Gothic Alekhine.)

I would like to know everyone's thoughts on this. I am thinking since you could have an opening named after yourself, it would be like very much by everyone :)

Recently, juangrande commented to me the following: "One feature of Gothic is that there is no opening book (yet)." Since I am brand new to this fascinating form of chess, I had been wondering about that very thing. Ed, has there yet begun any "standard" opening moves to appear with sufficient frequency as to warrant a name? Like is there a gothic equivalent of the Ruy Lopez, the French Def., the Sicilian Def., etc.?

Just curious.

Fernando, the database is generated starting by assembling all of the checkmate positions first. From each of these, you generate legal moves "in reverse". That means, you "undo" one move, then it is the mating side to move, and the move you undid must lead to a mate in 1 since the parent position was a checkmate. From all of these mate in 1 positions, you have the other side try to avoid entering the position. If every legal move leads to the mate in 1, then that side to move is mated in 2, etc.

From the parent position, I did not generate king moves, which means should the white king have been able to move and REVEAL a check of the bishop that resulted in a checkmate, that position was not assigned a "mate in 1" value. Since everything else in the database depends on all of this information, it has to be recomputed.

To enter the contest, just tell me where you want to place a knight, bishop and king that results in the longest checkmate of an enemy king, The board has 80 squares, a1 through j8. Good luck in the contest.

--Ed

Ed, how does looking for King moves or not looking for King moves affect the whole database? Does the program have to consider where the King can move when a Bishop or Knight move will effect checkmate? And how do I enter your "contest"? I was reading the postings, and just found out.

I found the bug in my database code. It was very stupid, of course. But hopefully you will be able to understand my logic flaw. Ok, the endgame is Bishop + Knight versus King. You are on the strong side, and you know you have a mate in 1 move. So I was generating every Bishop move from the position, then testing to see if the enemy King was checkmated. I was also generating every Knight move from the position to see if the enemy King was checkmated.

There, now do you see my logic flaw?

It is subtle. And it is NOT related to the Knight not being able to force checkmate. There are certainly mate-in-1 positions where the Knight seals the win due to an opponent's misplay.

I WAS NOT GENERATING KING MOVES LOOKING FOR MATES IN 1!

It never occured to me that the King could move in such a way to reveal the Bishop and exhaust a flight square for the enemy King, so my mate in 1 list was incomplete. This effects everything else in the database.

Now that it has been indentified, I will recompute the database, then regrade everybody's longest win.

--Ed

transmorgrafication is actually transmorgrification according to Calcin and Hobbes at this page: http://www.geocities.com/bow_of_odysseus/ic.html

LOL :)

It is that time again. I am looking for someone to volunteer to write for the Aprill 2003 "Guest Writer" spot for my website. If you have not seen the March editorial, done by chesscarpenter...


click here to see it.

The title of the article is "How To Beat Ed Trice", which, I think, could have been called something else :)

While Rob did annotate one of his wins against me, the content of the Guest Writer spot need not be a Gothic Chess game.

Write about the weather in your home town. Talk about the war with Iraq. Let others now what your favorite ice cream is. It does not matter.

I will review all of the submissions and select one for the month. I will keep all of the material, perhaps for a later issue.

All of the columns will be kept in an archive, so it will not "disappear" when it is over.

Just so you know, my own column...

Inventors Corner

...is really just some silly ramblings about caterpillars and Jesus' Grandpa this month. Pretty light reading by anyones standards.

So, give it some thought, send me whatever you like to GothicChess@aol.com and I will contact you afterwards.

--Ed

Well, since you did all the maths for this, it should be quite right.

I've got nothing to back up, but I feel a little 'naked' without the AB after its been exchanged off. I suppose that I would grade/value the AB a little higher, but that depends on the other available pieces on the board. You've seen some of my games and the damage I inflict with the 'peculiar' AB :)

Anyways, a note to Felix... I do follow what you guys are going on about this with great interest. Its just that I dont really have time to go into all the details, but I suppose that I try to remember whatever I can and apply it OTB.

Regards all,
65
*********
Pawn 1.00
Knight 2.50
Bishop 3.00
Rook 4.75
Archbishop 6.50
Chancellor 8.25
Queen 8.75

juangrande: Do you know Professor McFarland at the Univ. of Wisconsin-Whitewater? The web pages he has are stimulating. I have taken some of them to use as wallpaper for my daughter's computer in hopes that she looks for colleges using such information. Thank you for the tip!

juangrande: Yes, these are all points to consider, and I am interested in the future developments consequent to testing various hypotheses. It seems as though we are touching on a sort of frontier, though limited it may be, for where else is a man to find uncharted territory anymore?? /Fx/

Suppose on an 8x8 board there is a white pawn on c5, and white' king is very far away, like h1. Where can the black king catch it?

The answer is found by drawing a square that includes c5 on the bottom-left from white's perspective. c5..c6..c7..c8.. now over the same number ...d8..e8..f8 then down to ...f7..f6..f5...and back over ..e5..d5..c5.

If it is the black king to move, he must be able to reach this square, or else white promotes and wins.

OK, now "the concept of the square" can be used in other ways. This geometric trick can be used to determine "any square", not just a promotion square, that must be reached in order to save a draw.

Because the gothic board is wider, there are usually fewer "crowning races" but more "horizontal opposition races" when it comes to K + P endings. Usually pawns are on each side of the board, somebody tosses one to get a king out of position, then races over to the other side to take them all out from behind. You can tell at a glance geometrically if you can resign or if you should run like hell after the king.

I think it is time for me to put up some more web page material. This is a topic that has no real equivalent in the 8x8 world.

--Ed

Thanks, Felix, for interjecting some humor. I've apologized privately to Ed for the tone of my message since I think I crossed the line of friendly discussion. We are very fortunate that he takes the time to frequent this discussion board (and that he asked Fencer to implement Gothic Chess on this site). It is my hope that anytime I challenge anyone's statements on this board that they understand it is because I find the issue interesting and would like to generate further discussion in an attempt to reach a clearer understanding.

I freely admit that I misinterpreted Ed's statements; however, in my defense, the term "the square" in King and Pawn endings refers to "the square of the Pawn" and is always used in the context of a passed Pawn as a device to check whether the opposing King can catch it in time. Of course, if one wishes to generalize the term's meaning to include King position, there is nothing wrong with that; but it's not the generally accepted meaning (that is, until the majority is enlightened :-) ). Ed has indicated that his playing experience seems to show that misunderstanding of the subleties of chess on a 10x8 board is widespread (or, something like that, I think), so that games are lost more quickly on a 10x8 board (even after the Gothic pieces are exchanged) than most people expected. That's an interesting observation. However, it should be pointed out that King position and opposite-colored Bishop endings are often mis-evaluated in regular chess as well. That is, after a flurry of exchanges in regular chess, one could easily find oneself in a lost King and Pawn endgame because of inferior King position; and, opposite-color Bishop endings are not necessarily draws in regular chess either, particularly when there are Pawns on both sides of the board. Perhaps these considerations are magnified on a 10x8 board. It would certainly be interesting to test these theories.

Okay, but if we have pillow fights, can we use feather pillows in the street on a windy day?

Seriously, Ed, your Piece Values web page is quite informative. At first look, it appears to be mathematically correct, which is a welcome development. I have to wonder how much time it must be taking you to assemble all these parts to your platform? Fortunately, you seem to have the general footing secure in the way things work, so we can continue to blithely play our gothic games without wondering if it will ever catch on: of course it will!

And the feathers will be scattered by the wind for sure.

I finally finished the page with the mathematical derivation of the piece values. Each step is explained in great detail. Take a look at:

Piece Values

for more information. I came up with these values for the approximate piece weights. Feel free to discuss this, argue with it, defend, attack, or modify these values as much as you want online here.

Pawn 1.00
Knight 2.50
Bishop 3.00
Rook 4.75
Archbishop 6.50
Chancellor 8.25
Queen 8.75

This is exactly what I was talking about when we started the B+N vs. K contests. The spirit of putting the theories to practical test is the key issue. We can hurl e-mails at each other 'till the cows come home, and it won't prove anything. We have to test it in the lab. Ed Trice claims to have played the streets in this question of pawns outside the square, and that is precisely the wisdom that is required. We are dealing with a 10x8 board, and it OUGHT to come as no surprise that there may be some differences in play rooted in the fact of two more files on the board.

We are touching on things that could become hot topics of dispute in the chess world very soon, for it seems that people are just now starting to warm up to the idea, that to the greatest intellectual board game ever devised, a viable alternative now exists.

Furthermore, Drueke, and such manufacturers of high quality, tournament size chessboards, ought to wake up to the imminent demand for 10x8 boards, because it won't be forever that serious gothic chess players are willing to make do with roll-ups, or (like me!) post-its on the right and left borders of their walnut and maple solid boards.

--Unless, of course, the War Effort has placed reservations on the supply of seasoned hardwood lumber, in which case we are facing delays, not excluding those caused by War Protestors who impede shipment of materials... /Fx/

65th and Whisperz, it is not my intention to overwhelm you with esoteric nonsense. The terms we are using have specific significance, and this discussion is of genuine interest to me. Please do not think anybody is attempting to pull a fast one here, but if you decide this is too exhausting to follow, perhaps you would do well to go back (when you have had some rest-- a luxury for some these days!) and simply look for the word or words which appear mysterious, and look them up in a good dictionary. I am not kidding. You may well be amazed at how much less stressful it is to correct misconceived notions which begin in one word. I look forward to reading the links that Juangrande provided on the Opposition and on King and Pawn endings. These are two subjects regarding which I am quite pleased to find, there are real people who are willing to think about them, for I have never met such a person in real life. While there are books written, most chess players regard these topics as too boring to bother with. I believe that their frustration (perceived as "boredom") is due to not understanding the principles at work in these concepts, which is the root cause of their boredom, for once they're understood, a player suddenly finds he has a new appetite for studying King and Pawn endings (or Rook and Pawn endings, or Bishop and Knight vs. King endings, etc.) and he has a change of heart. On the internet, I have run into people who have experienced this change, and they are happier chess players as a result! If I can help people find happiness, that is its own reward.

These concepts are not for everyone, however, and a good chess player need not feel left out or inadequate for not caring to study these rare endings. Not everyone is interested in helpmate compositions, for instance. I am one of those. But I do not therefore think that someone who does appreciate them is somehow less of a chessplayer. In fact, if I ever meet someone who is a fan of helpmates, I look forward to asking them: what makes them think that way? Maybe I just have not had the right explanation.

In any event, I am glad you are participating in the discussion, for your disquiet is duly noted, and I will please try to be more discreet with my ramblings, so as not to appear presumptuous.

Eschew obfuscation! /Fx/

Better make that strong coffee ... and black ... and add some chocolate to help stimulate the brain ... it'a a little beyond me too :)

Well, I am still following the thread, although you guys have lost me with all that technical gobbledygook. Maybe I should go get some coffee first :)

From Juan:

-----
Ed (GothicChessPro) claims that it would be faster because more games would be decided by an outside passed Pawn due to the increased width of the board. I find that hard to believe.
-----

Nowhere did I discuss the specific ending theme of outside passed pawns.

My exact remarks were:

-----
Look at the concept of "the square" in king and pawn endings. Now the board is rectangular, which means, by default, you can swap down even from all minors to just pawns and be in an instant win.
-----

The concept of "the square" is not limited to outside passed pawns. Keyword: concept.

If the board was populated entirely by minor pieces, one miscue in Gothic, and a flurry of swaps could leave you in a King + Pawn ending that cannot be drawn because your own King would be too distant to reach a square where a breakthrough could be initiated or an opposition would need to be contested.

I have been in countless speed games and done this to chessplayers who would make comments like: "But this is a bishops of opposite color draw" to which I replied: "If you remove any two files on this board and make it an 8x8 board you are correct. But it is 10x8, so I win."

In the future, if there is something that is written that needs additional elaboration, just ask me and I will explain in more detail. As was seen in this case, and in the Juan/Felix discussion, it is possible for us to have "different understandings" of what was being discussed.

:-) Well, Felix, I must say that now I feel a bit silly for taking such a mathematical/scientific approach to your question since it appears that what you really meant by "speed" refers to the "feel of the game", a feature which can't be quantified. It seemed like you were taking the scientific approach by asking about the effect of the 10x8 board after removing the Gothic pieces, so that's what my reply addressed. Oh well, we both appear to agree that Gothic Chess is a richer, more complex, and "faster" game than regular chess. :-) BTW, see
http://math.uww.edu/~mcfarlat/177endg2.htm
for a brief description of opposition. For a more complete discussion of the fundamentals of King and Pawn endgames, see
http://www.chesscafe.com/heisman/heisman.htm
Note that everything said about King and Pawn endgames carries over to Gothic Chess.

When I say "faster" I am talking about two things: obviously, the fewer the moves in a game, the faster it looks (recorded) on paper, and since most game lists do not include a time value for each move, that duration of the game is somewhat nebulous. Correspondence chess may have a different look to the moves, but I think it would take an eye with much experience or else some great talent to tell whether a given move list came from correspondence play, which takes many days between each move, or speed chess, which can consist of two or three moves per second. Even so, lightening chess played by great masters likely exhibits more profundity than correspondence chess played by amateurs.

Secondly, there is a tempo aspect to chess which is inherent in the moves regardless of the time it actually took to play them. When one side achieves checkmate by force, it is in fact necessary that the offensive pieces by virtue of their aggression, have the initiative, for without it, they would not be able to press the defense into a losing position. This initiative has a curious aspect in that it can be entirely gained or entirely lost again, in one move. The frequency with which this occurs is another way to say the game is moving "faster" or "slower".

In my own limited experience with gothic chess, it seems to me that tempos get trumped by opposing tempos, leaving layers of latent action which has not been seen in chess, as far as I can tell. This complexity carries a sort of speed of its own which appears to make the game end in fewer moves, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps someone with better information can answer these questions. I have not made a very exhaustive study of chess theory and practice, but I am amused by the similarities and differences between the two games.

Someone brought up the concept of "distant opposition," maybe on IYT, and I do not know what that is, so I feel ignorant. It has to do with controlling the right and the left sides of the board from afar by placement of the King on the square which affords his potential movement the greatest effectiveness. If I could learn the basics of that theory, it may help me to find the answers I seek here, and then again, maybe not.

I was trying to identify in my mind the causes of gothic's speed, and in order to understand what is really happening here, I thought that separating the power of the pieces from the size of the boards would effect a clearer comprehension of what elements contribute to gothic's observed faster pace. I do not know if such knowledge would be useful, practically speaking, it's just this compulsion I have of wanting to penetrate the essence of a thing: in chess, it has been a journey of several decades for me, and now in gothic, I am facing the possibility that I may not live long enough to find the answers I seek.

And in the greater picture, as far as this discussion goes, the world may not last long enough for ANY of us to get all the answers we hope to find! /Fx/

I think Felix's question is deeper than the two previous answers would indicate. First of all, the question of whether Gothic Chess "takes longer" should be interpreted as "takes longer on average". Ed has stated on his website http://www.geocities.com/bow_of_odysseus/why_change.html that the average length of a game of regular chess is 55 moves and that the average length of a game of Gothic Chess is 30 moves. If we agree that "length" means "number of moves required to decide a game", this would indicate that Gothic Chess is significantly "faster" ("shorter") than regular chess. However, this difference in the length of Gothic Chess games versus regular chess games appears to be a result of the "increased firepower" on the board (Chancellors and Archbishops) rather than from the geometry (size and shape) of the board, so this result does not address Felix's question. the65thsquare claims that is hard to define "faster" or "slower", but the above definition that "faster" means "fewer moves, on average, for a decision" seems easy enough; and while I agree that a shorter checkmate is not necessarily better than a longer checkmate, it would appear to be hard to argue that the shorter checkmate is not "faster".

Felix's question (paraphrased) is this: Would regular chess be faster or slower on a Gothic Chess board (10x8)? Ed (GothicChessPro) claims that it would be faster because more games would be decided by an outside passed Pawn due to the increased width of the board. I find that hard to believe. Of course, if one could create an outside passed Pawn and exchange pieces down to a King and Pawn endgame with the opposing King outside the square of the passed Pawn, the win would indeed be simple (and fast). However, King and Pawn endgames are far from being the most common type of endgame and it is not at all clear that just because the board is wider that the proportion of games decided solely by an outside passed Pawn would be significantly higher. Here is another factor to consider: All of the elementary mates (K+Q vs K, K+R vs K, K+B+B vs K, K+B+N vs K) take longer (on average) on a 10x8 board because it takes longer to corral a King on a larger board. In fact, this is one of the points being discussed in the K+B+N vs K discussion thread. One should also take into consideration that, even though the Chancellors and Archbishops are off the board, the game may still be decided before an endgame is reached.

My personal opinion is that the "length" of a game with regular chess pieces on a 10x8 Gothic board would, on average, be very close to being the same as or only slightly longer than on an 8x8 regular board. Of course, this opinion is based on my interpretation of the theoretical considerations mentioned above, and not on any actual data, which reminds me of a well-known quote of Donald Knuth: "Be careful with the following code. I have only proved it to be correct, I haven't actually tested it." :-)

Theoretical wins are achieved more quickly. That is, a win takes fewer moves in general. When your opponent elects to resign is a different matter.

The reasoning stems from endgame fundamentals. Look at the concept of "the square" in king and pawn endings. Now the board is rectangular, which means, by default, you can swap down even from all minors to just pawns and be in an instant win. Usually, n chess, you have to manuever a great deal, play on for a long time, then get the opposing king out of the square to promote a pawn. No longer true in Gothic, in fact, you can even sac a piece to force the king to recapture, getting him into the rectangular area outside of the square, then you can promote at will.

Well it depends on what you mean by 'faster'. If two players of reasonable skill went up against each other, I would say that there are more options and possibilities due to the bigger board.

It is hard to define faster or slower, but if you are talking about pawns being promoted into Pieces, then it is a lot harder to keep track of everything going around the [larger] board.

I would say the game would seem faster if an expert was taking apart a beginner, but then that happens in chess too.

So no I wouldn't say that Gothic is faster than regular. Maybe more complicated, but certainly not faster [as a rule] because chess isn't about speed and we cannot define a short checkmate as being better than a prolonged checkmate.

What happens when the Cancellors and Archbishops are traded off, leaving regular pieces and two additional pawns on a bigger board: are such games likewise faster than chess, or slower by the fact of a larger arena with more pawns? If faster, to what can this speed be attributed, to the greater difficulty of protecting opposite sides of the board, or some other aspect? /Fx/

Hi Felix,

I was having trouble as well. I am also recomputing the database and trying to resolve the errors in it. Once this is done, I will announce the winner, but up to that point in time, anyone can enter.

--Ed

I tried to send this for the past 2 days but could not get this discussion board to activate. I got messages to the effect that BrainKing was being updated.

In case it still is possible to register my entry, here it is:

Wht: Ka8, Bg8, Ni1
Blk: Kc7, with Black to move. /Fx/

Some of you had contacted me privately regarding the opportunity to get the Gothic Chess Federation moving. As you know, pieces already have been produced, but getting people to quit their day jobs in this economy has not become a reality.

I had put some numbers together concerning raising private capital (banks give you a nice low rate, but they want your house as backup. Venture Capitalists give you lots of money and collect lots of interest, and they want the rights to the company. I am offerening very high dividends and "votership" in the enterprise, a great middle ground) and these conservative estimates are posted online at:

Investor Inquiries for those of you who are interested.

I have been committed to Gothic Chess since 1998, and I left my full time job in 2001 to make this a reality. Basically, if everyone on BrainKing gave as little as $500, we could start this as an international enterprise tomorrow!

Feel free to read it and offer any comments. For those who have $1000 or more to invest, think about what the stock market could deliver, versus the 20 times investment dividend you could have over the course of the 6-year investment tenure.

I was so happy to see the thing finally able to put out text, I did not check any of them other than the first mate in 40, which looks like a mate in 40.

However, there are two areas that are suspect.

1. The database could be fine and the translation to the output text could be wrong.

2. The database could be garbage.

Just as an FYI, this is a database generator, and it does not apply the "50 move rule" to any such position. It solves all of the checkmates and draws on the first pass. Then, it backs up one move at a time, seeing which play is forced, and which is not forced.

It works its way backwards, from checkmated to mate in 1 to mated in 2 to mate in 3, etc.

Since I do most of my coding from the hours of 9 PM to 2 AM, I need to double check this stuff.

For now, consider all posted solutions to be on hold, subject to further review.

This is no mate. It is a curious 5-fold repetition, which would have been a draw after the first 3. The computer did not recognize it as such, and neither did the programmer, aparently.

It seems to me that this mistake begins when the King moves to g4, already occupied by the Bishop. If we substitute a legal move, such as Kh4, the play could have played out to mate. But this mistake continues in the Knight moves, which instead should have continued the pattern already established, which would have then resulted in mate at move 37, anyway.

My question is rather on several of the previous positions, which have the Black King moving in ways that seem to facilitate his own demise. I am now wondering if the program was hastening toward a stalemate position instead of attempting to survive 50 moves? This latter objective is the principle subject of our investigation, after all. /Fx/

I am unquestionably thankful for your effort in putting out these solutions, Ed, and it will give me a good workout to study them in detail. In the interest of learning better chess, this is an exercise that can go a long way to filling a void in a student's tactical skill: the proper handling of Bishop and Knight, and more generally, the proper handling of two pieces of different powers.

While I delight in the prospect of gaining more proficiency on the board, it comes as a curious disappointment that I have found an obvious error in your move list. In the solution you have provided for Whisperz' entry, there is the following: 12.Bg6 is followed by 13.Kh6, and then 14.Kg6(*?*). This is impossible, because the King is moving to a square occupied by his own Bishop.

I trust this is an oversight and that you will soon locate the source of the error and fix it, for we are depending on you to get it right, eventually. That is, we can't rely on computer moves that would not win in real life games. /Fx/

Personal to Ed, the dyslexic wizard:

With all due respects, sir, while we all appreciate your posting of the solutions, we must ask for a reconsideration in Whisperz' case, for he said, "Black King on j8" and you provided a solution for mate in 34, however, it proceeds: "1...Kj2," which means that while you have acknowledged j8 as the starting position, you have somehow allowed the computer to register j1 (or i1, i2, i3, or j3) as the starting square. Ain't it nice you are among friends, who so joyfully tolerate your little foibles??

DSYLEXCIS FO TEH WORDL UNTIE!

Let's see now that's, the Bishop changed color and it took a Capablanca fan to notice, you let the program stop at 64 plies without questioning its reason for stopping, and you provided a Whisperz solution for a position unlike Whisperz' entry. But who's keeping track? /Fx/

Whisperz
- Move 14 Kg6 clashes with move 12 Bg6 :(

Jaungrande
- Move 27 Kg4 but bishop is already here (move 23).
- Moves 29 to 36 are repeats, and why wouldn't King repeat Kj4 at move 37?
:)

I will concentrate on verifying the databases today. With so many of those solutions featuring checkmates with a Knight, I am not 100% sure they are entirely accurate.

Interesting that even the mate in 37 by Juan featured a knight checkmate, not a bishop checkmate! This could mean that given a wide variety of choices, the unforced loss was just as long as the forced loss. Or, the database could need to be scrutinzed more fully.

If you want to go over any point in the analysis shown here, I will do so and check whatever you woud like checked out.

--Ed

White: Ka8, Be8, Nj2
Black: Kc8

Mate in 37

Nh3 Kd8
Bc6 Kc8
Bf3 Kd8
Kb7 Ke7
Kc7 Ke6
Kc6 Ke5
Kc5 Kf6
Kd5 Kg7
Nf4 Kh6
Be2 Ki7
Ke6 Kj8
Nh5 Ki8
Bd3 Kj8
Bf5 Kj7
Kf6 Kj8
Kg7 Kj7
Kh6 Kj8
Ng7 Kj7
Ni6 Kj6
Bi8 Kj5
Ng5 Kj4
Bf5 Kj5
Bg4 Kj6
Nh7 Kj5
Kh5 Kj4
Kh4 Kj5
Kg4 Kj4
Nj8 Kj5
Nh7 Kj4
Nj8 Kj5
Nh7 Kj4
Nj8 Kj5
Nh7 Kj4
Nj8 Kj5
Nh7 Kj4
Nj8 Kj5
Nh7#

White: Ka1, Ba2, Nb1
Black: Kj8

Mate in 34

Kb1 Kj2
Nd2 Kj3
Nf3 Kj4
Kc2 Kj5
Bb1 Kj6
Kd3 Kj7
Ke4 Ki7
Kf5 Kh6
Kg4 Kg7
Kg5 Kf8
Ne5 Kg7
Bg6 Kh8
Kh6 Kg8
Kg6 Kh8
Nf7 Kg8
Bh5 Kf8
Kf6 Kg8
Bi6 Kf8
Ne5 Ke8
Bf3 Kd8
Ke6 Kc7
Nd7 Kd8
Kd6 Ke8
Bh5 Kd8
Nc5 Kc8
Bg4 Kd8
Ne6 Kc8
Kc6 Kb8
Nc5 Ka7
Kc7 Ka8
Kb6 Kb8
Na6 Ka8
Bf3#

White Kc8,Ba1,Ni1
Black Ka8

Mate in 25


Ng2 Ka7
Kc7 Ka8
Ne3 Ka7
Nc4 Ka8
Nb6 Ka7
Bd4 Ka6
Nd5 Kb5
Ne3 Ka5
Kc6 Ka6
Nd5 Ka5
Bb6 Ka4
Kc5 Kb3
Ba5 Ka4
Bd2 Kb3
Ne3 Ka4
Bb4 Kb3
Kb5 Ka2
Kc4 Kb2
Ng4 Kc2
Ne3 Kb2
Ng4 Kc2
Ne3 Kb2
Ng4 Kc2
Ne3 Kb2
Ng4#

I found one of the mates in 40 moves would be a draw for black to move, without capturing a piece on the first black move! Now that must be, by definition, one of the hardest positions in the database!