@chessisgood:
The position is possible. I did it in 108 moves.
Not quite - Black's king and queen are on the wrong squares. That's easy enough to fix, of course... just change the last 10-15 moves and repost. Remember, we allow unlimited answers here :)
I did it in 107 moves.
I did it in 107 moves.
Nice improvement. However, it looks like things are starting to get super-competitive around here - browni3141 just posted a 91-mover. Of course, you're welcome to try and top that... unlimited answers allowed! :)
Side to move most definitely matters. So it's 91 moves, as per the blue-text variation. I'd prefer that it be the mainline, but whatever - 91 moves is pretty darned impressive, regardless :)
Side to move most definitely matters. So it's 91 moves, as per the blue-text variation. I'd prefer that it be the mainline, but whatever - 91 moves is pretty darned impressive, regardless :)
I would bet it is doable in less than 80. I got a solution with 90 moves, but it's not worth posting. I'll wait until I get a significant improvement.
Based on browni3141's board, you could reduce the amount of moves used by a few.
Sub-90?! Wow... that'll be tough to beat.
Based on browni3141's board, you could reduce the amount of moves used by a few.
A diagram or list of moves would certainly help. If you're right, I want to see it!
You'd have to clafify the rule on using someone else's board and changing it around. It probably won't count, but . . . maybe it should b/c if they didn't see it, its their problem . . .
If I ever could get under 85 moves, I can't see it now.
shortest proof games don't need it to be whites turn, see wikipedia and ozproblems.com, for example.
You'd have to clarify the rule on using someone else's board and changing it around. It probably won't count, but . . . maybe it should b/c if they didn't see it, it's their problem . . .
Your proof game counts; "borrowing" from somebody else's board is allowed, essentially for these 3 reasons:
1.) It's much fairer than it sounds. In order to improve upon someone else's solution, you actually have to see something they didn't. And ties are broken chronologically, so getting the same number of moves isn't good enough. Furthermore, there is no limit to the number of answers a person can submit, which means whoever you "1-upped" can just as easily "1-up" you in a similar manner.
2.) It keeps things interesting and competitive. It's a LOT harder to post an "unbeatable" solution if everyone else can then use it to their advantage.
3.) Disallowing such tactics would be rather impractical, as there just isn't a good way to specify what, exactly, would constitute a violation of the rule. In other words, "How similar is too similar?" Sometimes the policy "anything goes" is really the only way to go.
So now the number to beat is 85 moves. Only a day and a half remaining for the position in post #17... if you want to win round 2, you'd better hurry! 
Maybe we should just pm you so people can't just use eachother's solutions with small improvements.
^ Guess my reasoning in post #37 wasn't convincing enough for you ; )
But yeah, I sort of understand your point - using someone else's solution does make things easier, even if you have to find improvements... which makes it a bit like cheating, I suppose. 
I'll consider it. Maybe I'll take answers via pm for round 3, and just update the thread with the latest "best score," or something like that.
^ Guess my reasoning in post #37 wasn't convincing enough for you ; )
But yeah, I sort of understand your point - using someone else's solution does make things easier, even if you have to find improvements... which makes it a bit like cheating, I suppose.
I'll consider it. Maybe I'll take answers via pm for round 3, and just update the thread with the latest "best score," or something like that.
I missed post #37, sorry, but I still think pm's would be the best idea. You could release the top solutions at the end.
It seemed to me that 90% of the work involved was before all the knights promoted, and since thb1973's solution used all of those same moves, it is a little bit frustrating. I'm not mad or anything, but it sucks that he probably didn't have to do very much work to get 85 moves from my 86 move solution, but to get the 86 move solution in the first place was a lot of work for me.
It only took me a couple min. to go back and find an 85 mover. So I think it may still be improvable by a bit.
@chessisgood:
The position is possible. I did it in 108 moves.