16

The "Fireside Book of Chess" by I. Chernev and F. Reinfeld includes the following diagram

[fen "3nk3/3NN3/3PP3/3BB3/3PP3/3PP3/3PP3/2RQKR2 w - - 0 1"]

Composed by J.N. Babson for Brentano's Chess Monthly in 1882. Mate on the 1220th move, after compelling Black to make three successive and complete Knight's tours.

(Note that there is a mate in one. The problem asks for something more specific.)

Facts:

  • Babson is a real composer, famous for long mate problems.
  • Brentano's Chess Monthly was a real publication from 1880 to 1882, and Babson did have problems published there.
  • A FIDE page that lists people with FIDE titles has a biographical sketch of Babson citing a 1220 move problem, and a 1990 move problem on a 10x10 board.

Issues:

  • I can't find any reference to this problem on the web, other than the above mentioned book.
  • Nobody ever mentions any problem with this many moves... anywhere!
  • A knight tour is the motion of a knight through all the board squares. Three of these would mean only 192 moves.

So here are my questions:

  1. Is the problem for real?
  2. How should one interpret the knight tour condition? Probably the knight will capture most of the central pieces, but do the other pieces have to move aside to let the knight through?
  3. What is the solution?
  4. Why is this not more widely known?
7
  • 6
    Interesting question, +1. But I'm not sure why you compare this to the 517-mover of Konoval and Bourzutschky (chess.stackexchange.com/a/674/167). For that position, it is optimal play by both sides that results in conversion to a won 6-piece endgame after 517 moves. The purported 1220 moves for this position has nothing to do with optimal play, of course, as it's noted in the question that White's best play is simply mate in one: 1.Rf8#. – ETD Sep 8 '13 at 14:27
  • 1
    @Ed Dean: The instructions of a problem tell you what your goal is. In the 517-mover the goal is to reach a theoretically won position through optimal play n both sides. In this other problem the instructions say nothing about optimal play; the mate in 1 is irrelevant because it does not fulfill the goal. I compare them both because they both need a huge number of plays to reach the requested goal. – yrodro Sep 8 '13 at 16:29
  • 1
    Oh, I understand that these problems have very different goals. Indeed, that was exactly my point: it just struck me as uninformative to compare the numbers involved, since it's 517 apples and 1220 oranges, precisely because the stated goals are different. (Just to emphasize: I consider this only a minor quibble, and won't harp on it any further. I very much like the question, and hope to see an answer that touches on the intended solution.) – ETD Sep 8 '13 at 16:56
  • 1
    Sidenote: This should be termed a "fairy chess problem", due to the side conditions. And when it comes to fairy chess, ~1000 moves are nothing, if my memory serves me well. (I dimly remember one with ~10000.) – Hauke Reddmann Aug 28 '16 at 20:45
  • 1
    Mike Fox & Richard James copied it in their The Complete Chess Addict (pub.Faber 1987), p.174, but don't give any clue as to a solution. – Rosie F Oct 27 '18 at 17:42
11

After some searching, it turns out that this monster is very much a real chess problem. The official name for it is "The Obelisk."

The earliest known reference I have found is from February of 1882, mere weeks after its publication. Bizarrely, it comes from an Australian magazine. The site I found it on is trove.nla.gov.au.

It appears in the 1882, February 25th edition of the South Australian Weekly Chronicle, published in Adelaide, on page 25. It is part of an overall review of Brentano's January 1882 issue.

Here is a clipping of the relevant section to read for yourself.

enter image description here

I also found mention of it in the "American Chess Review, Volume 1, Issues 1-6l"readable on Google books. It is dated to 1886, four years later.

The information is given in the middle of the page. The position itself is given near the end of the page in descriptive notation. More abut what that is on Wikipedia. For your information, the "S" is the German notation for the knight; it was semi-standard back then.

enter image description here

Here are later sources.

Chess Review 1936, issue 37 page 17; viewable online in the US Chess Federation's online archive

Curious Chess Facts, by Irving Chernev, 1937

Wonders and Curiosities of Chess, page 205, by Irving Chernev, 1974

The Complete Chess Addict, by Mike Fox & Richard James, 1987

The Even More Complete Chess Addict, by Mike Fox & Richard James, 1994

Unsurprisingly, there is no solution given anywhere at all. The reason for this is that the magazine ceased publication soon after the mate in 1220 was printed. Thus, another edition with the solution was never made.

As for how to interpret the stipulation, I believe it is very simple. White forces the Black knight to visit each and every square three times. Then White gives checkmates. Most of the moves come from White's pieces dancing around in order to do said forcing. If anyone is crazy enough to try and solve it, they will surely find a much shorter solution than whatever Otto Blathy had in mind.

3

To force the knight into a corner a piece must be sacrificed. 3 knight tours, 4 corners per tour, so that's 12 White pieces that must be lost. And none of the lost pieces can be knights (from where did it get there to give check?).

2
  • 1
    So White starts Nf6+ (else Nxe6 is annoying, making it KNN vs KN after the tours), Black is forced to play Kf8. Then I think Rc8 forcing Kg7. – Post-It-Note Aug 5 '16 at 23:23
  • 1
    Can you explain why a piece has to be sacrificed to force a knight into the corner? Not so obvious to me. – Steve Bennett Jun 15 at 3:57
2

Looking at the position and the phrasing of the question, I would have to say that the problem is flawed. The directions are far too restrictive - how can white compel black to make three knight tours? If this was defined as a helpmate that's solvable in 1220 moves, then the problem would make more sense. However, even in this case, I cannot fathom how that would be possible as the number of moves that a three knight tours sum to is far less than 1220.

1
  • 7
    I think the idea is probably to force and trap the black king somewhere that a check can only be escaped by moving the knight to the next square on the tour (either interposing or capturing the piece there). The knight would thus move exactly 192 times, but there would be a lot of moves by the black king. – supercat Mar 18 '14 at 1:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.