Not yet, but I want to :D

:-) Did you find a solution?

The most annoying exercise I have ever taken.

I reverted the change on the number of random tests, and added a paragraph in the description that references the Chess Endgame Database you referenced, Kacarott.

Thank you for the suggestion!

Yes you need a lot of tests to get enough variety.. forgot about that. 50 probably isnt enough.
About performance, I dont know if you could do a basic search algorithm that consistently needs 16 moves without implementing a lot of logic (and being somewhat fast). But maybe thats wrong

What I used for testing, was every position when it was white's turn, so comparing two boards I could see where I moved, and then how black reacted. And I think somewhat long output is quite ok, as long as it is only produced when the user fails a test (and perhaps it could be an optional thing, that the user has to set DISPLAY = True or something)

I am not sure I agree with this... My solution is an example of one which has largely correct logic, but with many specific cases that it handles wrong. Yesterday when there were 500 I was passing anywhere between 1-150 of the random tests, but usually about 20-30 before finding a case which I handle wrong. (You can fork the solution to test it out yourself and see how often it fails)

I think for a purple kata its fair enough to require high performance, but thats just my opinion. If the new low amount now allows for 'basic' search algorithms, etc. then this might even be blue.

OK, I have reduced the number of tests by a factor of 10.

Glad you took the time to work on this kata, and thank you for the suggestion! What state of the game would you suggest to include in the output? The starting position, the position before the last one or two moves, or all states of the sequence from start to end? The latter might produce long output (a sequence could have up to 50 moves)? What did you have in mind?

Working through the kata, a really nice bonus feature would be a visualisation of the board on failure, similiar to some of the "Play Game" series katas. Here you could directly just use ASCII as there are unicode symbols for the pieces I believe.

Just an idea :)

Fixed

;-) Hope you enjoy the ride!

It is safe to say that creating a family is complicated :/

Would it not be good to include negative and bigger integers as well?

This wouldn't change the intended approach in any way, only some concrete implementations would be affected. During the final iteration of redesigning the tests a couple years ago I stopped on the [1; 50] range, and IMO it'd be better to not change the specs again for such insignificant reason. I removed the note about the input range earlier, but now it's back as a part of the specifications.