Timeline for What proportion of chess positions that one can set up on the board, using a legal collection of pieces, can actually arise in a legal chess game?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2014 at 4:36 | comment | added | Paul Burchett | Also, and respectfully, this is a long thread. For those that want to follow, don't you think the standard definition should be used! It's just much easier? | |
| Apr 27, 2014 at 4:33 | comment | added | Paul Burchett | @ToddTrimble My post I think you will find, or possibly have now found, it to be relevant. Double check in the standard sense can also be analyzed and possibilities possibly pruned there as well - although perhaps not as many as with other suggestions! | |
| Dec 29, 2013 at 0:13 | comment | added | Johannes Hahn | @ToddTrimble: That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 22:44 | comment | added | Paul Burchett | The more I think about it simultaneous check wouldn't work either, for the word simultaneous shows up a lot in chess literature! | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 21:34 | comment | added | Paul Burchett | How about simultaneous check? | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 21:22 | comment | added | Paul Burchett | Apologies to you both. I was skimming. Although the typical meaning of "double check" to players is the legal possible definition. | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 1:31 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | In any case, I feel very confident that "double check" in JDH's sense is the one implied in the third line of his post (both kings in check as an example of an illegal position), and I'm also confident that Paul Burchett had in mind the standard meaning of "double check" where one king is checked by two chessmen (he had enumerated the pairs of men that could not deliver a double check, and this fits the meaning I'm ascribing to him here). I'm hoping Paul will acknowledge the misunderstanding, and also that his meaning is not very relevant for the present thread. | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 0:20 | comment | added | Todd Trimble | Might there be a miscommunication here about the meaning of double check? If "double check" means that both black and white kings are in check, then this cannot legally occur. But if "double check" is understood in the sense that one king can be checked by two different pieces, this is of course possible (and in fact this term comes up frequently in the literature on chess tactics). | |
| Dec 28, 2013 at 0:00 | comment | added | Johannes Hahn | How can a double check be legal? If I understand the rules correctly, at one point in a legal game one of the players has to put the other player's king in check without causing his own king being in check (that would be an illegal move). At that point the other player must (try to) resolve the check by either moving his king away, blocking the way of the attacking piece or taking it off the board. He is not allowed to just "countercheck" the first player and leaving his king where it is. Did I misunderstand something in the rules? | |
| Dec 27, 2013 at 23:40 | history | undeleted | Paul Burchett | ||
| Dec 27, 2013 at 23:39 | history | edited | Paul Burchett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 354 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2013 at 4:21 | history | deleted | Paul Burchett | via Vote | |
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:54 | history | edited | Paul Burchett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 42 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 | history | undeleted | Paul Burchett | ||
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:43 | history | edited | Paul Burchett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:30 | history | deleted | Paul Burchett | via Vote | |
| Aug 2, 2013 at 10:27 | history | answered | Paul Burchett | CC BY-SA 3.0 |