We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Traditional chess games and chess topics in general

Moderators: hgm, gaard, Ras

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
Dann Corbit
Posts: 11702
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by Dann Corbit » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:10 pm

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.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 11702
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by Dann Corbit » Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:06 pm

Some of Gilbert's very long mate announements:
https://www.chess.com/blog/batgirl/mate-in-35
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.

corres
Posts: 3600
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:41 am
Location: hungary

Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by corres » Thu Aug 27, 2020 9:06 am

Dann Corbit wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:10 pm
Yes.
Judit Polgar. She had OTB Elo 2710 - among men chess player. There is no lady with higher Elo.

Uri Blass
Posts: 8828
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by Uri Blass » Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:55 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.

MikeGL
Posts: 964
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:49 pm

Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by MikeGL » Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:03 am

Uri Blass wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:55 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 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.
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.

User avatar
mhull
Posts: 13435
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:02 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas
Full name: Matthew Hull

Re: We have a chess queen, but do you know the queen of chess?

Post by mhull » Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:04 am

Uri Blass wrote:
Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:55 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.
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".

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

Post Reply