Talk:Proof game

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

8. b8=N# is not tight

8. b8=N# doesn't have a unique solution.

1. a4 d6 2. a5 Kd7 3. a6 e6 4. axb7 Nc6 5. Rxa7 Nce7 6. Rxa8 Nf6 7. any Ne8 8. b8=N#

Changing the problem to 7... b1=N# would make it tight.

Or am I missing something?

Arvindn 00:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

7... b1=N# doesn't have a unique solution either.

1. d3 a5 2. Kd2 a4 3. e3 a3 4. Nc3 axb2 5. Nce2 Rxa2 6. Nf3 Rxa1 7. Ne1 b1=N#

The order of the moves d3,e3,Nc3,Nf3 can be changed.

--68.122.74.195 21:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Mirror image" solution isn't unique

1. c4 c5 2. Qa4 Qa5 3. Qc6 Qc3 4. Qxc8# —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.146.69.164 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed move

I suggest renaming this article to "Proof game." A shortest proof game is a type of proof game, but not the only type. What do you think? Soberknight (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the terminology to know. If that is better, I say "go ahead". Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to write an explanation into the introduction. Suffice it to say I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for the input. Soberknight (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first paragraph already lays it out. A "proof game" is a retrograde analysis chess problem for finding a path to a given position in a specified number of moves. A "shortest proof game" additionally requires that there not be a shorter path. Sometimes a proof game is designed to take one more move than necessary to require the hypothetical players to "lose a move" by not simply moving a piece back and forth, but finding a more elaborate maneuver. Soberknight (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty

For an introduction to proof games, I find both examples from Mortimer and Caillaud too tricky. They are fascinating, no question. But for explaining what a proof game is, I suggest starting with a much more straightforward example! For this purpose, I added an introductory example, happy to see a much better one in the future. Dlb (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a solving contest, let alone a solving contest for beginners. It is an encyclopedia article. Examples should be chosen for their beauty or their interest, not for triviality and boredom. "Trickiness" is even a good thing.

Moreover, making up our own examples is more or less prohibited in Wikipedia. See WP:OR. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't understand, however why the Bishop's opening example is a violation of WP:OR. It can be verified most easily as an SPG in 2.0, so according to WP:OR it is ok. 1.e4 is a SPG in 0.5; this does not need a citation; it is a simple, verifiable fact. Not an exiting one, but it is one. I think there is a similar point here as in the Helpmate article. For my understanding proof game is not a synonym to the proof game problem. A position is legal if there is a proof game, for example. The use of the proof game term is not limited to proof game problems. The article should explain the term proof game as concise as possible; I think this is not the case now. I can only say this informally, but for my feedback, it is like an article from the very specialists which have forgotten that not all are specialists (don't take this literally). Dlb (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that, because the Bishop's opening example is elementary, calling it WP:OR may not be appropriate; thanks for that observation.

If you can come up with an explanation to use in the opening paragraph(s), that is more concise or, for whatever reason, appeals to you more than what is there now, feel free to try it out. The worst that can happen is that someone will revert it and/or argue with you about it. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]