Chess Logic Question
-
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"
-
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
Yes, of course... it is called a full combo... I used it a lot in the street fighter games...
[www.tamelectromecanica.com] Robots, CNC and PLC machines for grinding and polishing.
-
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"
You are not allowed to castle while in check anyway.
-
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
Sure it is... Assume that two white pieces, such as, a rook & queen, check along the same file. If the black can move off the file or interpose, no double check. Note: Some define "double check" as a condition which forces the king to move. For those, the question is moot. ;-)
-
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"
dpminusa wrote:
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.
Detail doesn't matter. If it's not possible, it's not possible. It was nice of you to list chess pieces though :-) (they're called "rooks", not "castles"). And castling can't "sometimes" handle the problem, it never can. Not only would the king move making it invalid for this problem, but a standard rule of chess is that you can't castle out of check ever. The only way it would be possible would be if there were a discovered check where 2 rooks were on the same rank or file as the king, or a bishop and queen (or 2 bishops) on the same diagonal as the king. However that would be really stretching it because under normal terminology the king is not under check by both those pieces - only 1 of them. Of course if 1 of the pieces involved in the discovered check is a knight, then nothing can be done because a knight's path can never be blocked. Only 1 of the 2 pieces can be blocked, and only 1 of the 2 pieces can be captured. For those of you about to jump on my "2 bishops on same diagonal" comment, technically that is possible if you promoted a pawn to a bishop for some reason. (Normally the only reason to avoid promoting to a queen is if stalemating the opposing king by the promotion is a concern, either immediately or if you're worried about making a mistake down the road in a speed chess match.)
-
Sure it is... Assume that two white pieces, such as, a rook & queen, check along the same file. If the black can move off the file or interpose, no double check. Note: Some define "double check" as a condition which forces the king to move. For those, the question is moot. ;-)
tf_ics wrote:
Sure it is... Assume that two white pieces, such as, a rook & queen, check along the same file. If the black can move off the file or interpose, no double check.
As I wrote in my other post, that is not considered "double check" by standard terminology. Only 1 piece has put the king in check. Double check is not "defined" as a condition which forces the king to move, but simply that double check is 2 checks from 2 pieces in 2 different directions, and it so happens that the only way out of this is to move the king. I assume there's a typo in your post, where you said "if the black can move off the file or interpose." If that was supposed to be "if the black king can move off the file or another piece can interpose", then there's a third way out of the situation you described. For example if you have 2 connected rooks and one of them gives discovered check, then by capturing that rook you are simultaneously blocking the other rook from giving check. This sounds like a homework problem or something, and I wonder if the teacher might be expecting an answer when he doesn't fully understand the problem or rules.
modified on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:57 PM
