Agreed! I was referring to: 1.Ke6-d7 2.Kd7*d8[+nPd7] 3.Kd8-e7 1.nPd7-d8=nR 2.nRd8*e8[+nPd8=nQ] #
Sorry, please ignore my earlier post. The nPe8 is a captured black pawn, which would not promote on e8!
There is at least one cook that can't be fixed: in the second solution 6.Bxd7(+nPe8=nQ) works just as well.
Nice series problem Vlaicu! The diagram seems incorrect, though. It is C+ Popeye v4.61 with bPg7->f7. With bPf7 the "cook"…
Those who are not familiar with Invisibles are advised to consult the result of the 9th Japanese Sake Tourney: http://ubp.org.br/wccc2009/composing/Sake_Tourney.pdf…
Thanks, the difference between capturing and non-capturing moves by I is indeed stated in the definition. However, drawing a solver's…
Got it! Thanks.
Again, you cannot specify an Invisible without proof. How can you prove wIa3 is some specified piece when you cannot…
It is of course a possible solution. The one way to rule it out is of course to say that…
Non-capturing move by an Invisible is denoted simply as I-- and its destination square cannot be specified without proof. Therefore,…