Just curious if this one will be thrown out by the next generator run. What does Toga say the actual material difference is between 1... exf4 (the currently required solution) and 1... Qd4 (the move I tried first as it seems simplest; thank goodness it's an accepted alternative). And, what happens if you throw some extra CPU at the position? Does 1... exf4 stay solidly "best", or does 1... Qd4 perhaps pull up neck-and-neck with it?
Crafty 22.0 confirms that 1... exf4 certainly does win (see the list of cases in my comments at the problem itself), but then as an exercise I gave it 1... Qd4 and with 20 minutes of 2.4GHz CPU it produced:
2. Kf1 Qxf4 3. Qd3 Qc1+ 4. Ke2 Rc2+ 5. Qxc2 Qxc2+ 6. Ke3 Qxg2 7. Rb1 Qf2+ 8. Kd3 Qxf3+ 9. Kc2 g2 10. Kb2 e4 11. Rc1 e3 12. Rc7+ Kf6 13. Rc8 Qf2+ 14. Kb3 g1=Q 15. Rf8+ Ke5 16. Re8+ Kd4 17. Re7 -18.53
Which tells us that the difference is academic. Whether we are judging by how much material is won how fast, or by how fast we reach checkmate, the computer cannot demonstrate an appreciable difference between the key first moves. The truth is beyond the practical horizon of an exhaustive search, and even if it weren't it would be meaningless.
The problem now feels somewhat bogus, which is a shame because both lines have valuable lessons to teach.
For a composition which I wonder whether *any* of today's computers could solve, see the "Dance of the Elephants". The mate is forced but it's 28 ply away from the initial position. Is that in range of dedicated processors?
http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzz16b.htmhttp://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessplayer?pid=10156&kpage=1