There is an infinite chessboard...

In a jump, exactly one piece must be jumped over. Not 2 not 0 not even 1/2 of a piece. Empty squares may not be jumped.
Yes one of the d4's in my above post should be a d3.

Originally posted by Dejection
In a jump, exactly one piece must be jumped over. Not 2 not 0 not even 1/2 of a piece. Empty squares may not be jumped.
Yes one of the d4's in my above post should be a d3.

no need to get so picky and uptight
just a little misunderstanding of the question from SG's part
im guessing ur jst a bit envious at his retro skills and this is ur attempt to get back at him 😀
jst calm down boy
EDIT: i've manged to get to row 4 but all the other squares start to seem so far away....

It's true, I admit it! I am a phsycopath/maniac who dislikes any with better skills than me in any way at all, and I will get back at them and attack them in any way possible! 😕 banx99, i know where you live...

Originally posted by Dejection
It's true, I admit it! I am a phsycopath/maniac who dislikes any with better skills than me in any way at all, and I will get back at them and attack them in any way possible! 😕 banx99, i know where you live...

no u dont....

I've been to your place, remember? Now let me search through the muddy depths of my brain to find that memory...

funnily enuff....
i dont remember...
when?

Hint: David's post
Hint2: The golden ratio.

has david actually solved it?

I suppose so. He seemed to have solved the five-in-a-row and nine-in-a-row as well. I suppose the fact he gave that hint implies he has solved it. Why don't you have a shot?

Originally posted by Dejection
I suppose so. He seemed to have solved the five-in-a-row and nine-in-a-row as well. I suppose the fact he gave that hint implies he has solved it. Why don't you have a shot?

i say it is possible after further consideration.

I seem to recall hearing about this little problem from somewhere.

Now let me get this right.

Move Rules
1) A piece may jump a piece orthogonally adjacent to it, provided the space beyond it is empty.
2) A piece that is jumped is removed from the board.
3) A piece cannot jump multiple pieces.
4) A piece cannot jump diagonally.
5) A piece cannot move unless it jumps another piece.

Does that about cover it?


If so, then here is what I recall of that puzzle.

You can reach the first rank with 2 pieces.
You can reach the second rank with 4 pieces.
I believe the third rank is where space starts becoming a problem, with the 4th rank requiring infinite pieces to reach.

The fifth rank is impossible to reach using these rules.

Sadly, I cannot recall the proof or analysis to reach these conclusions, but one of the biggest factors is the lack of diagonal movement, which makes chaining very cumbersome.

I wish I had a more complete answer, but perhaps someone else here does.

The fourth rank is possible with a finith number of pieces.
And yes, those five rules cover it much more clearly than i did, thank you.

Originally posted by geepamoogle

3) A piece cannot jump multiple pieces.

so this means that a piece can jump a piece, then stop then jump another piece, which is the same as a multiple jump. Doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
so this means that a piece can jump a piece, then stop then jump another piece, which is the same as a multiple jump. Doesn't make sense.

Let me clarify that rule.

3) A piece cannot jump multiple pieces in a single move.


This leaves open the possibility of the piece jumping several others one at a time, which is very clearly a necessity to move beyond 1 row out.

I am interesting in seeing the minimal solutions for 3, 4, and 5 row depths...