Chess Logic Question
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
-
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
I'm sort of there with you. Could you please elaborate a bit?
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
I don't believe this is possible. To en passant, the previous move had to have been that pawn you are capturing. Otherwise you cannot en passant. I just can't envision any situation where advancing a pawn two spaces and putting the other player in check by two pieces would allow the other player to en passant out of check.
-
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
Dalek Dave wrote:
en passant.
That's an interesting idea but I don't see how it would work. Gotta think on that one some more. Marc
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
en passant.
That's an interesting idea but I don't see how it would work. Gotta think on that one some more. Marc
Truth be told, so have I! I hadn't thought it through. I am sitting here, beered up and waiting for the Australian Humiliation. (And I don't mean Russel Crowe is about to arrive at my house).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
-
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
Care to explain? I can’t imagine giving double check using a pawn, let alone how capturing this pawn en passant will save you from the other check. I need to try this at home on the real chess board and hopefully will figured it out.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
I don't see how the King could become in check from more than one piece to begin with. After becoming in check from the first piece, if the King doesn't get out of it then and there, the game is over. EDIT: I see how it could occur: Suppose there is a Knight and a rook behind the Knight. If the Knight moves to put the King in check, it also uncovers the rook which is also checking the King.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Truth be told, so have I! I hadn't thought it through. I am sitting here, beered up and waiting for the Australian Humiliation. (And I don't mean Russel Crowe is about to arrive at my house).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
-
I don't see how the King could become in check from more than one piece to begin with. After becoming in check from the first piece, if the King doesn't get out of it then and there, the game is over. EDIT: I see how it could occur: Suppose there is a Knight and a rook behind the Knight. If the Knight moves to put the King in check, it also uncovers the rook which is also checking the King.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Getting put into check by 2 or even 3 pieces can easily happen. The question is, can you get out of a double check with only one move (other than moving the King)?
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
-
Getting put into check by 2 or even 3 pieces can easily happen. The question is, can you get out of a double check with only one move (other than moving the King)?
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
Flipping the board up in the air works for me!
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
-
Truth be told, so have I! I hadn't thought it through. I am sitting here, beered up and waiting for the Australian Humiliation. (And I don't mean Russel Crowe is about to arrive at my house).
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
Here's the Australian definition of Russell Crowe's Citizenship. Russell Crowe does something profoundly stupid and/or violent - New Zealander Russell Crowe hasn't done anything stupid for a while, but his last movie kinda sucked - Australasian Russell Crowe wins some award, stars in a blockbuster movie, or receives some significant accolade - Australian
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
From a (former) professional chess player (myself): NO. It is absolutely impossible. The ONLY way to get out of a double-check is to move your king. If not possible you're checkmated. (Yahoo! Chess has a bug here) Note that a triple-check is impossible in the first place.
-
Getting put into check by 2 or even 3 pieces can easily happen. The question is, can you get out of a double check with only one move (other than moving the King)?
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
"Getting put into check by ... 3 pieces" is completely impossible and even absurd to imagine.
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
There are three ways to get out of a simple check: capturing the checking piece, putting something in between the checking piece and the king (not if there are no empty squares in between, and also not if the attacker is a knight), and moving the king. There is basically one way to give a double check, it is always a "discovered check", and essentially the two checking actions are by different pieces and work in different directions; different pieces means you can't capture both, different directions means you can't put something in between to block both checks. On a double check, the only escape is by moving the king. Here are some examples of discovered check (using algebraic notation): (1) White Kh1, Re5, Bd4; Black Kh8. Discovered single checks would be most rook moves; double checks would be Re8 or Rh5. (2) White Kh1, Ne5, Bd4; Black Kh8. Discovered single checks would be most knight moves; double checks would be Nf7 or Ng6. (3) White Kh1, Re1, pe2; Black Ke4, pd3. The only check is a double one: pawn e2 takes d3. You can easily verify none of those can be recovered from without moving the black king. It is impossible to offer a triple check; moving a piece can cause a check by that piece itself, and by the one piece it discovers, as in the examples above. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Season's Greetings to all CPians.
-
yes. en passant.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[
Nope. See my other reply. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Season's Greetings to all CPians.
-
Here's the Australian definition of Russell Crowe's Citizenship. Russell Crowe does something profoundly stupid and/or violent - New Zealander Russell Crowe hasn't done anything stupid for a while, but his last movie kinda sucked - Australasian Russell Crowe wins some award, stars in a blockbuster movie, or receives some significant accolade - Australian
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Sounds like Einstein's citizenship.
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
... no substitute for a good blaster at your side. :cool:
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
Kevin Marois wrote:
other than the King, and get out of check?
No. Not that I'm aware of.
The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realise it doesn't say anything it's too late to stop reading it. My latest tip/trick
-
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind
Not enough detail. If would depend on the pieces putting the king in check and their positions on the board. Bishops, Knights, Queen, Castles, pawns or some combination. Castling can sometimes handle the problem but that is not one piece and does involve the king.
"Coding for fun and profit ... mostly fun"
