I'm not sure who the original composer is to give credit...but it might give you a headache to try and solve this one!



White to move and mate in two. The only "hint" for now is I will confirm it really is mate in TWO moves for White. I have not made an error in the setting up of the problem so don't use that as an excuse to skip solving this one!

I proved that....

I proved that as i've said.


I don't have to! The author of the problem does not tell us to prove that ONLY one move mates in 2 for white.
It tells us to show there is one (at least) mate in 2 for white. I have shown one. It's enough. Problem solved.

Wrong! you didn't understand (or read) anything of what i was saying before.
I will not repeat since i was very clear.

At least can you answer me the question:
You don't accept as true of what the author says about "there is a mate in 2 in this position for white".
Why is that?
He said that clearly: "THERE IS A MATE IN 2 FOR WHITE IN THIS POSITION!"
So the problem is easier than you think it is.


IF he didn't give the HINT, THEN you would be right that we COULD NOT USE the statement that white has a mate in 2 as true.

BUT he gave the HINT! He added a new parameter to the problem. That makes the whole problem different.


I repeat:
If he gave a position and asked us to find if there is a mate in 2 then you would be right that we could NOT use my first proof.
But he gave a position, said THERE is a mate in 2 and asked us to find this mate in 2.

The first one should have us to prove that black can't castle with the way i shown in my 2nd proof.
BUT the second case which is the problem we investigate, you can solve it with the way i said also.

I hope you understand now.....

<Crocodile>
Then you also didn't read my first message. If you really want to prove it like that, which both you and me know was not the intention of the author, then you at least have to show that other moves indeed do not mate in two. You just said "other moves don't so this one must work". So if you insist that your proof was right too, then you should have provided that proof too, that all other moves do not mate (and no, I'm not asking you to post all those moves here, but you get my point).

<Endeavour>
1. Bh6 Kd8 2. Nc6 isn't mate. And there are other ways to mate black if black helps: 1. Qa4+ Kd8 2. Qd7# etc.

Indeed, you're right. But is this the proof method you're after?

I don't know what was the author's intention.
I only know the problem and the problem can be solved with both 2 ways i gave.


How many times i have to say that this is not necessary?
The author asked a mate in 2 to be found. He didn't ask a mate in 2 to be found, while at the same time to prove it is the only one! How do you came up with this impression?


And where did i say that? Can you quote my words for this?


I will probably not continue because you haven't answered my previous question and my post too where i explain extremely clearly where you are wrong. You either didn't read my previous post or you didn't understand it or you understand it but don't want to accept the fact that you were wrong.

And the question:
You don't accept as true of what the author says about "there is a mate in 2 in this position for white".
Why is that?
He said that clearly: "THERE IS A MATE IN 2 FOR WHITE IN THIS POSITION!"
So the problem is easier than you think it is.

That's just nonsense... First you say that this must be the solution because there is a solution and all other moves aren't the solution, and now you say that you don't need the fact that all other moves aren't the solution?

You either:
- Prove that your move mates in two, no matter what black does (the easy way)
- Prove that all other moves do not mate in two, and prove that there is indeed a mate in two (and I do think the word of the poster is a very thin proof for this)

Once again(oh well):
I didn't say that....


Please read in 2-3 years this whole topic again. Read what i've said carefully and what you said and i hope you will understand then.... You've done many mistakes/misinterpretations of what i've said as also many mistakes of your own, about the problem.
You will now deny this again i guess, but please read this next year or in 2-3 years and i hope you will see you were wrong....

No hard feelings from my part as always. I just don't want to see incorrect things to be written. I don't write to insult. I write to correct.
I use a mathematical strict logic and this most times brings the problems with people's common logic....

??