I tried this question on various LLMs on poe.com and Claude, Sage, and Claude+ correctly answered that a knight can't move from f6 to d4.
Dragonfly failed the test, and though Claude did answer the question correctly, it gave some other examples of invalid moves for a knight on f6. All of the moves that Claude+ gave were valid, but it didn't list all possible moves for a knight on f6.
This was part of a longer conversation. It's pretty long and it got confused pretty easily, so I had to correct it multiple times. It was an interesting experience in its novelty, but it felt like pulling teeth to get it to give me a move.
- It insisted multiple times that it was not a chess player. "As an AI language model" it's not physically capable of playing chess, nor does it have a personality, so it couldn't play chess but was able to be an "AI chess assistant".
- As is ChatGPT's default M.O., it was a wordy son of a bot. Giving me explanations which fields would be controlled and what pieces would be developed, and what not. Often analysing my move too.
- It repeatedly offered multiple move options, so I had to ask it for only one move every move.
- After my fifth move it couldn't come up with a good move, so I asked it to describe the board. It did, and it even drew me a diagram. The diagram was complete nonsense: it had 9 black pawns for a start. The description was okay-ish, but not good enough. I could correct that though, but it took two iterations.
I didn't get much further with it. It was completely confused about the state of the board and the possible moves. Still, it did know which game it was playing and more or less how to act with it, so I was still kind of impressed.
You can really tell that it is a language model, not just because it bloody keeps reminding you, but also by the things it does wrong and right. E.g. getting wordy analysis or legible descriptions, but ridiculous diagrams.
As another example: at one point it corrected me. I accidentally used notation in my native language ("Pg3") and it said that it was invalid but assumed I meant "Ng3". That was correct, it's clearly better at talking about chess than playing chess.
I tried GPT4, it failed. I also tried Vicuna which sort of passed. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks OpenAI did something to neuter the chess playing capabilities of their models.
GPT4:
Yes, a knight in chess can move from f6 to d4. The knight moves in an L-shape pattern: it can move two squares in one direction and then one square perpendicular to that direction, or one square in one direction and then two squares perpendicular to that direction. In this case, the knight would move two squares to the left (from f6 to d6) and then one square down (from d6 to d4).
Vicuna:
No, it is not possible for a knight on f6 to move to d4 in chess. The knight's movement pattern is L-shaped, meaning that it moves two squares horizontally or vertically and then one square diagonally. In this case, moving from f6 to d4 would require the knight to first move to g7, which is not part of its movement path.
Dragonfly failed the test, and though Claude did answer the question correctly, it gave some other examples of invalid moves for a knight on f6. All of the moves that Claude+ gave were valid, but it didn't list all possible moves for a knight on f6.
I didn't try GPT4.