Originally posted by David113I've never heard of this variation of monochrome, and with good reason. What sense does it make for pieces to give check on squares they can't reach? This is inconsistent with the definition of check.
"Pieces still give check on squares they cannot reach but would have been able to reach in a normal chess game" - according to the Retrograde analysis corner (http://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/Monochromatic.htm) this is not true. Maybe different people use different conventions.
Originally posted by Fat LadyTry playing a legal game to reach the position.
I agree that it should only be check if the king can be taken next move with a legal monochromatic move. E.g. a Black rook on f1 would not give check to a White king on e1.
I can't work out much from this position. Obviously the White king hasn't moved. Black's last move must have been d7-e8 or f7-e8.
If White didn't have a bishop on e3 or e4 then Bla ...[text shortened]... Perhaps there's some way to prove that this must have been White's white squared bishop?
Originally posted by PeakiteNow comes the harder question: Why can't you play through a game and end up with a Bishop on e4?
The bishop is on e3 - I've played through a game (and certainly not the shortest one to get there).
Either side could have moved last, I think, probably a black K capture (is it possible to force a win with KQ v K in this?).
The most obvious thing to think of is that the rooks need releasing early on, whites black B can't do this without the b pawn being removed first of all. So a capture on h7 or h5 to get things going?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBlack has no pieces left on the board and the two white pawns and King have obviously not moved and are all on black squares.
Now comes the harder question: Why can't you play through a game and end up with a Bishop on e4?