1. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 06:32
    Black

    White
  2. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    13 May '08 06:381 edit
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    Black
    [fen]8/8/3KPk2/8/8/8/8/B7[/fen]
    White
    Nope, not legal. [I suspect the diagram did not come out as intended.]
  3. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 06:41
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Nope.
    SOLV'D (SwissGambit)
  4. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 06:54
    Pointe of the PM by Jirakon
    Nope, not legal.
    SOLV'D (Jirakon). The answer is very complicated, as you can see...
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    howling mad
    In the den
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    13 May '08 07:22
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Nope, not legal. [I suspect the diagram did not come out as intended.]
    The board is upside down and white has just promoted a pawn to a bishop. ... else its illegal.
  6. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 07:26
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    illegal.
    SOLV'D (wolfgang59)
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    howling mad
    In the den
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    13 May '08 09:57
    Sorry I should have PMed you but didnt think I was right.
    (I NEVER SOLVE CHESS PROBLEMS!) LOL
  8. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 18:01
    b) wK->d7. Why is this position not illegal anymore?
  9. Joined
    27 Apr '08
    Moves
    473
    13 May '08 18:19
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    b) wK->d7. Why is this position not illegal anymore?
    I can't see a reason... maybe I'm just not good at this. Did you mean wKd5?
  10. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    13 May '08 18:24
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    b) wK->d7. Why is this position not illegal anymore?
    e. p.
  11. Joined
    27 Apr '08
    Moves
    473
    13 May '08 18:26
    Originally posted by David113
    e. p.
    Good one! Didn't consider that.
  12. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 18:34
    Originally posted by David113
    e. p.
    Then why was e.p. not possible in the 'a)' part of the problem?
  13. Joined
    27 Apr '08
    Moves
    473
    13 May '08 18:361 edit
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    Then why was e.p. not possible in the 'a)' part of the problem?
    bPe7 would put wKd6 in check (i.e. both kings would be in check simultaneously, bK from wBa1).
  14. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    13 May '08 18:41
    Originally posted by curseknight
    bPe7 would put wKd6 in check.
    Yes... therefore the previous moves cannot have been d4-d5+, e7-e5, d5xe6 e.p.+, since White cannot have played d4-d5 while his own King was in check. Therefore, the first position is illegal.

    With the wK->d7 the previous moves can/must have been (in order to reach the position) d4-d5+, e7-e5. d4xe6 e.p.+.

    I welcome better thought out explanations.

    (on a sidenote, 'can have been', is there a better construction to say this?)
  15. Joined
    27 Apr '08
    Moves
    473
    13 May '08 18:471 edit
    Originally posted by heinzkat
    Yes... therefore the previous moves cannot have been d4-d5+, e7-e5, d5xe6 e.p.+, since White cannot have played d4-d5 while his own King was in check. Therefore, the first position is illegal.

    With the wK->d7 the previous moves can/must have been (in order to reach the position) d4-d5+, e7-e5. d4xe6 e.p.+.

    I welcome better thought out explanations.

    (on a sidenote, 'can have been', is there a better construction to say this?)
    "were possibly" might be useful there. Good problem, at first I could not see how en passant was possible, forgetting the pawn check.
Back to Top