The post that was quoted here has been removedIts a bit more complicated than I originally thought...
Originally posted by RagnorakWhat's the fourth case? I see only three:
Its a bit more complicated than I originally thought...
"The FIDE Laws of Chess says in article 9.6:
"The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game.""
To keep the implementation simpl ...[text shortened]... + N + N v K can possibly result in a checkmate, so definately shouldn't be included.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's actually two (or many more) more cases. K+B v. K+B and K+B+B (up to 9 Bishops) v. K both cannot end in checkmate if the Bishops travel on squares of the same color.
KBBK with both bishops being on the same coloured square.
Not likely but a case nonetheless. Isn't it?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf you had looked at the link I had provided, you'd see a table of scenarios, from 1 to 8.
That's actually two (or many more) more cases. K+B v. K+B and K+B+B (up to 9 Bishops) v. K both cannot end in checkmate if the Bishops travel on squares of the same color.
There are also 'special' cases, such as the following:
White to play. What was Black's last move?
So it is a question of which cases are practical to code.
Originally posted by RagnorakThe problem on this site is that links don't look like links. I finally got the linkification extension for Firefox, which fixes this problem.
If you had looked at the link I had provided, you'd see a table of scenarios, from 1 to 8.
1 to 3 you know.
4 is stated as
King + m * Bishops
m > 0
bishops (if more) stand on the same color
King + n * Bishops
n > 0
bishop (or bishops if more) stand on the same color as bishop or bishops on the other side
so programmatically, there ...[text shortened]... cial cases, like the one you mention, which I suggested would be impractical to implement.