At the risk of being stubborn about this, it is still a reference to a theoretical concept only... not an actual conclusion to a game... this is not a result that can occur in turn-based play...
I'm also curious about the term "varient chess"... and the entry BEFORE "double stalemate" which was "double checkmate"...
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by DecanterI agree that double stalemate cannot occur in turn based play, however
At the risk of being stubborn about this, it is still a reference to a theoretical concept only... not an actual conclusion to a game... this is not a result that can occur in turn-based play...
I'm also curious about the term "varient chess"... and the entry BEFORE "double stalemate" which was "double checkmate"...
the problem does not state that double stalemate can be reached in turn based play. It only states that the solution can be reached, and mentions that the solution is not double stalemate (which is hence redundant information).
Originally posted by iamatigerwhen you come to actually work out the position proper you will discover that this is not redundant.
I agree that double stalemate cannot occur in turn based play, however
the problem does not state that double stalemate can be reached in turn based play. It only states that the solution can be reached, and mentions that the solution is not double stalemate (which is hence redundant information).
The condition (d) perhaps , is a statement about the position only. Hence it only perhaps supplements condition(b). The idea could be that the final position that is the solution,should be such that, it should be possible to tell from the position itself as to who had moved last-white or black. Is it so?. The condition (d) would be meaningful only if , without this, more than one solution would have been possible....Or if it helps in deciphering the solution. Tiger or the poser may please throw some light on this..
Originally posted by sarathianin the final solution, what is the break-up regarding the number of white pieces and that of the black pieces? Or is that also left as a part of the puzzle?
when you come to actually work out the position proper you will discover that this is not redundant.
Originally posted by Mephisto2"double stalemate" is just a peculiar position. The problem says it is NOT a double stalemate position, that means the position is such that you can prove, from the position, who had moved last;
I didn't expect my solution to be correct - I called it silly myself. And I can understand some of the semantics. But it doesn't help trying to put more pieces on the board as long as I don't understand the contradiction between a) + b) and d) (assuming 'chek' means 'check'😉. According to FIDE Laws of chess E.I.01A: "The game is drawn when the play ...[text shortened]... your a) through d) differently, but I fail.
Anyone else can help here? Until then, I am off.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
Originally posted by sarathianWhat was wrong with the solution that had white in stalemate, with proof that it was white's go?
"double stalemate" is just a peculiar position. The problem says it is NOT a double stalemate position, that means the position is such that you can prove, from the position, who had moved last;