Encouters of the third kind in CHESS Fun

Originally posted by Decanter
(and I still say there's no such thing as "double" stalemate)

see
http://www.bcvs.ukf.net/gvcp.htm
under D

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"...

Originally posted by Decanter
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"...

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).

Originally posted by iamatiger
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).

when you come to actually work out the position proper you will discover that this is not redundant.

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 sarathian
when you come to actually work out the position proper you will discover that this is not redundant.

in 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?

Originally posted by Mephisto2
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.

"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;

Originally posted by sarathian
"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;

What was wrong with the solution that had white in stalemate, with proof that it was white's go?

Originally posted by iamatiger
What was wrong with the solution that had white in stalemate, with proof that it was white's go?

The problem remains - placing a third(10 pieces) of the remaining 30 pieces on the board.