A Very Illegal Position
It's been a while since I've done a chess puzzle, so here's one!
This position is illegal in quite a lot of ways:
It's illegal in at least 10 ways. The first one to find all of the ways this position is illegal (it's 10 or more, I know exactly how many) gets the check and +1 from me.
Good luck and happy puzzling!
Updated: I am considering, for the sake of this question, a way that this position is illegal to be any part of the position that could not have occurred from the starting position, even if it requires other illegal pieces to be that way.
chess
add a comment |
It's been a while since I've done a chess puzzle, so here's one!
This position is illegal in quite a lot of ways:
It's illegal in at least 10 ways. The first one to find all of the ways this position is illegal (it's 10 or more, I know exactly how many) gets the check and +1 from me.
Good luck and happy puzzling!
Updated: I am considering, for the sake of this question, a way that this position is illegal to be any part of the position that could not have occurred from the starting position, even if it requires other illegal pieces to be that way.
chess
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
1
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
1
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago
add a comment |
It's been a while since I've done a chess puzzle, so here's one!
This position is illegal in quite a lot of ways:
It's illegal in at least 10 ways. The first one to find all of the ways this position is illegal (it's 10 or more, I know exactly how many) gets the check and +1 from me.
Good luck and happy puzzling!
Updated: I am considering, for the sake of this question, a way that this position is illegal to be any part of the position that could not have occurred from the starting position, even if it requires other illegal pieces to be that way.
chess
It's been a while since I've done a chess puzzle, so here's one!
This position is illegal in quite a lot of ways:
It's illegal in at least 10 ways. The first one to find all of the ways this position is illegal (it's 10 or more, I know exactly how many) gets the check and +1 from me.
Good luck and happy puzzling!
Updated: I am considering, for the sake of this question, a way that this position is illegal to be any part of the position that could not have occurred from the starting position, even if it requires other illegal pieces to be that way.
chess
chess
edited 10 hours ago
asked yesterday
Excited Raichu
5,9632965
5,9632965
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
1
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
1
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago
add a comment |
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
1
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
1
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
1
1
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
1
1
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check by both the Rc3 and Bg4. Double-check is possible in certain cases, by either a discovered check or an en-passant capture, but neither can have happened here.
3.
The white bishop on b1 can only arrive there via a2 and c2, and there are white pawns on a2 and c2 which can't have moved.
4.
Black has nine pawns.
5.
White has two light-squared bishops; one must have been promoted but White has still eight pawns.
6.
White's pawns seem to have captured three times (b-pawn to d5, d-pawn to e3), but Black's only missing piece is a single knight. Also, the f7 pawn can only get there via captures (unless the black f6 pawn somehow dropped out of thin air, see 4.)
7.
There's no way for the black rook which started on h8 to escape (to either b6 or a1).
I'm not sure I can find more; for example,
it will be hard for the Ra1 to reach that square, but once you assume the Bb1 materialized out of thin air (see 3.), it's not a problem anymore.
Also,
the black pawns are 7 columns 'away' from their home squares, but if you assume the g3 has been dropped there, only 4 captures are required to account for the a- and b-pawns, and there are four white pieces missing (two knights, a rook and the queen).
A pitfall:
the white king can be put in check this way; Black's last move could have been Nh4+ (discovered check)
Note that
some of these irregularities could happen during a game of bughouse.
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's my 10 (I didn't look at anyone else's answers, honest)
1.
Nine black pawns.
2.
Black's h8 rook could not have left rank 8, yet black has two rooks, entailing a promotion from a tenth black pawn!
3.
Black pawns have made at least five captures, e.g. cxbxa3 and dxexfxg3, but White is missing only four units (queen, rook and two knights)
4.
Black's check with the bishop on f3 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by Black, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 3.
5.
White pawns have made at least three captures towards the kingside, e.g. bxcxd5 and dxe3. Moreover, two captures fxexf or fxgxf are needed to put a white pawn on f7. However, even if we remove a black pawn, black is missing only one unit (a rook).
6.
White's check with the bishop on g4 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by White, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 5.
7.
White's bishop on g4 and rook on c3 are giving an impossible double check.
8.
4. and 6. mean both kings are in check at the same time.
9.
White bishop on b1, though it wasn't born there and couldn't have moved there.
10.
White has two bishops on white squares but has eight pawns and thus has no promoted pieces.
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1. bishop in g4 in check
2. rook in c3 in check
3. bishop in f3 in check
4. rook in a1 cant get there
5. 9 black pawns
6. pawn in a3 cant get there
7. pawn in g3 cant get there
8. pawn in f7 cant get there
9. 2 white bishop on white squares
10. pawn in e3 cant get there
11. bishop in b1 cant get there
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
add a comment |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but here's my answer. Possibly an incomplete answer.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check from two pieces.
3.
There are 9 black pawns. Removing the one at g3 makes the pawns at a3 and b2 valid via capturing white officers.
4.
There are not enough captured black pieces for the white pawns to be in those positions. The f7 pawn in particular is in a suspicious location, though this pawn configuration is possible if there were enough black officers to capture.
5.
The white bishop on b1 is in an impossible location.
6.
The white bishops are both on white squares, but all of the pawns are present.
7.
The black rook at a1 is in an impossible location... Sort of. It would be possible via promotion, but there already too many black pawns for that to be possible.
8.
There should be a black rook in the upper-right corner because there's no way it could get out with the bishop at f8.
That's all I see. I might be lumping together multiple items by your count into one.
New contributor
add a comment |
Black has 9 pawns.
2.
Both kings are in check.
3.
The black king is in double check. This can only happen if one of the checking pieces shielded the opponent king from the other prior to the check. This is not possible with the took on c3 and the bishop on h4.
4.
The white bishop on b1 could never have reached this field with the white pawns on a2, c2.
5.
White has two bishops on white fields. This can only happen after a pawn has been promoted. White however still has their complete set of 8 pawns.
6.
With white pawns on the e and g files and a black pawn on f6, the white pawn on f7 can reach this field only with at least 2 captures. However, black has lost only 1 piece and all pawns (in fact even one surplus pawn, he. item 1), thus never had a promoted piece.
7.
White's pawn structure implies at least 5 captures (bxc, cxd; dxe; fxe, exf) but black has lost a single piece only and no promotion so far (cf. item 6)
8.
With black pawns on e7,f6,g7,h7 and a black bishop on f8, the black rook initially on h8 could only have reached the field g8.
9.
The black king is in check so white moved last. Since the white bishop on h4 can only move along the diagonal to c8 the black king must have been in check before the move; or black put itself into check by illegally moving a pinned piece; or white moved a different piece to open the diagonal, but white does not have a piece that could have moved this way [not sure if this counts though as the checking situation is impossible in the first place, cf. items 2 & 3]
10.
Black is in an 'impossible' double check and puts white in check (cf. items 2 & 3). That can only happen if black doesn't move out of a check, thus playing illegally.
add a comment |
I only managed to find 10 so far, here it is:
1. White bishop in B1. It's not possible in a normal game.
2. Two white bishops in the white square, while still having 8 pawns.
3. Black Rook in A1. It's not possible in a normal game.
4. Black Rook going out from H8 while Bishop hasn't moved from F8.
5. White Rook missing from A1. Stolen and replaced by black rook? :P
6. Black pawn totaling 9. It was supposed to be only 8 in a game.
7. White king under check, while black king also in check.
8. Black king under two different check, from Rook in C3 and Bishop on G4
9. White pawn structure. It just simply weird to have a pawn on F7, D5 while also having a pawn on E3, while black only missing a knight.
10. Both kings is under check, is simply impossible.
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Definitely illegal
1.
Black has 9 pawns
2.
Rook a1 could be legal in isolation as a promoted pawn, but in light of #1, I'm declaring it illegal
3.
Bishop b1 cannot get there
4.
Both white bishops are on white, white has 8 pawns, one bishop is illegal
5.
Both kings are in check
6.
Black king is in illegal double check, could not be discovered by legal movement of either offending piece
7.
Black rook starting h8 could not have legally escaped, due to number of remaining black pawns, absence of rook considered illegal
8.
White pawns are at least 3 places off home columns, black still has 16 pieces, though missing a knight, at least two illegal places off home
9.
Pawn f7 is illegal, cannot have captured the required 2 pieces to return to home column behind black pawn as black not missing enough pieces
10.
Even assuming pawn g3 to be the interloper, black pawns are a minimum of 4 places off home column, white is missing 4 pieces, but rook a1 could only have been captured by a knight or queen, at least one illegal place off home
Not illegal but might look it
1.
Bishop f3 check could be discovered by movement of knight h4 from g2, otherwise it's really hard to get into that position
- This ties into illegal #10
Assuming bishop b1 to have been placed there at the start of the game, white rook starting a1 could not have legally escaped, but could have been captured by a knight or queen. Black bishop could not have been used.
add a comment |
Bb1, no legal way to reach there
Ra1, no legal way to reach there, due to Bb1
Kh1, in check, other King in check
Kc8, in double check, other King in check
f7, no legal way to reach there
Bf8, no legal way to reach there
2 white bishops, with 8 pawns. Does this count as two illegals?
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78081%2fa-very-illegal-position%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check by both the Rc3 and Bg4. Double-check is possible in certain cases, by either a discovered check or an en-passant capture, but neither can have happened here.
3.
The white bishop on b1 can only arrive there via a2 and c2, and there are white pawns on a2 and c2 which can't have moved.
4.
Black has nine pawns.
5.
White has two light-squared bishops; one must have been promoted but White has still eight pawns.
6.
White's pawns seem to have captured three times (b-pawn to d5, d-pawn to e3), but Black's only missing piece is a single knight. Also, the f7 pawn can only get there via captures (unless the black f6 pawn somehow dropped out of thin air, see 4.)
7.
There's no way for the black rook which started on h8 to escape (to either b6 or a1).
I'm not sure I can find more; for example,
it will be hard for the Ra1 to reach that square, but once you assume the Bb1 materialized out of thin air (see 3.), it's not a problem anymore.
Also,
the black pawns are 7 columns 'away' from their home squares, but if you assume the g3 has been dropped there, only 4 captures are required to account for the a- and b-pawns, and there are four white pieces missing (two knights, a rook and the queen).
A pitfall:
the white king can be put in check this way; Black's last move could have been Nh4+ (discovered check)
Note that
some of these irregularities could happen during a game of bughouse.
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check by both the Rc3 and Bg4. Double-check is possible in certain cases, by either a discovered check or an en-passant capture, but neither can have happened here.
3.
The white bishop on b1 can only arrive there via a2 and c2, and there are white pawns on a2 and c2 which can't have moved.
4.
Black has nine pawns.
5.
White has two light-squared bishops; one must have been promoted but White has still eight pawns.
6.
White's pawns seem to have captured three times (b-pawn to d5, d-pawn to e3), but Black's only missing piece is a single knight. Also, the f7 pawn can only get there via captures (unless the black f6 pawn somehow dropped out of thin air, see 4.)
7.
There's no way for the black rook which started on h8 to escape (to either b6 or a1).
I'm not sure I can find more; for example,
it will be hard for the Ra1 to reach that square, but once you assume the Bb1 materialized out of thin air (see 3.), it's not a problem anymore.
Also,
the black pawns are 7 columns 'away' from their home squares, but if you assume the g3 has been dropped there, only 4 captures are required to account for the a- and b-pawns, and there are four white pieces missing (two knights, a rook and the queen).
A pitfall:
the white king can be put in check this way; Black's last move could have been Nh4+ (discovered check)
Note that
some of these irregularities could happen during a game of bughouse.
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check by both the Rc3 and Bg4. Double-check is possible in certain cases, by either a discovered check or an en-passant capture, but neither can have happened here.
3.
The white bishop on b1 can only arrive there via a2 and c2, and there are white pawns on a2 and c2 which can't have moved.
4.
Black has nine pawns.
5.
White has two light-squared bishops; one must have been promoted but White has still eight pawns.
6.
White's pawns seem to have captured three times (b-pawn to d5, d-pawn to e3), but Black's only missing piece is a single knight. Also, the f7 pawn can only get there via captures (unless the black f6 pawn somehow dropped out of thin air, see 4.)
7.
There's no way for the black rook which started on h8 to escape (to either b6 or a1).
I'm not sure I can find more; for example,
it will be hard for the Ra1 to reach that square, but once you assume the Bb1 materialized out of thin air (see 3.), it's not a problem anymore.
Also,
the black pawns are 7 columns 'away' from their home squares, but if you assume the g3 has been dropped there, only 4 captures are required to account for the a- and b-pawns, and there are four white pieces missing (two knights, a rook and the queen).
A pitfall:
the white king can be put in check this way; Black's last move could have been Nh4+ (discovered check)
Note that
some of these irregularities could happen during a game of bughouse.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check by both the Rc3 and Bg4. Double-check is possible in certain cases, by either a discovered check or an en-passant capture, but neither can have happened here.
3.
The white bishop on b1 can only arrive there via a2 and c2, and there are white pawns on a2 and c2 which can't have moved.
4.
Black has nine pawns.
5.
White has two light-squared bishops; one must have been promoted but White has still eight pawns.
6.
White's pawns seem to have captured three times (b-pawn to d5, d-pawn to e3), but Black's only missing piece is a single knight. Also, the f7 pawn can only get there via captures (unless the black f6 pawn somehow dropped out of thin air, see 4.)
7.
There's no way for the black rook which started on h8 to escape (to either b6 or a1).
I'm not sure I can find more; for example,
it will be hard for the Ra1 to reach that square, but once you assume the Bb1 materialized out of thin air (see 3.), it's not a problem anymore.
Also,
the black pawns are 7 columns 'away' from their home squares, but if you assume the g3 has been dropped there, only 4 captures are required to account for the a- and b-pawns, and there are four white pieces missing (two knights, a rook and the queen).
A pitfall:
the white king can be put in check this way; Black's last move could have been Nh4+ (discovered check)
Note that
some of these irregularities could happen during a game of bughouse.
edited 5 hours ago
answered yesterday
Glorfindel
13.4k34983
13.4k34983
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
rook h8 could have been captured by a white knight, though
– Bass
yesterday
1
1
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
True, but that would require another promoted black pawn.
– Glorfindel
yesterday
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
Note that in a game of antichess bughouse, this is probably a valid position :)
– Hosch250
7 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
On #2, it might be worth elaborating. Since, in real games, it's possible to have a double check when one check is revealed by the second checking piece. But in this particular case, there's no way for the rook or the bishop to have been blocking the other before the most recent move.
– Shufflepants
5 hours ago
1
1
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
@Shufflepants Players can't make moves that put their own king in check, so I don't think you can have a double check regardless.
– W W
3 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Here's my 10 (I didn't look at anyone else's answers, honest)
1.
Nine black pawns.
2.
Black's h8 rook could not have left rank 8, yet black has two rooks, entailing a promotion from a tenth black pawn!
3.
Black pawns have made at least five captures, e.g. cxbxa3 and dxexfxg3, but White is missing only four units (queen, rook and two knights)
4.
Black's check with the bishop on f3 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by Black, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 3.
5.
White pawns have made at least three captures towards the kingside, e.g. bxcxd5 and dxe3. Moreover, two captures fxexf or fxgxf are needed to put a white pawn on f7. However, even if we remove a black pawn, black is missing only one unit (a rook).
6.
White's check with the bishop on g4 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by White, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 5.
7.
White's bishop on g4 and rook on c3 are giving an impossible double check.
8.
4. and 6. mean both kings are in check at the same time.
9.
White bishop on b1, though it wasn't born there and couldn't have moved there.
10.
White has two bishops on white squares but has eight pawns and thus has no promoted pieces.
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Here's my 10 (I didn't look at anyone else's answers, honest)
1.
Nine black pawns.
2.
Black's h8 rook could not have left rank 8, yet black has two rooks, entailing a promotion from a tenth black pawn!
3.
Black pawns have made at least five captures, e.g. cxbxa3 and dxexfxg3, but White is missing only four units (queen, rook and two knights)
4.
Black's check with the bishop on f3 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by Black, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 3.
5.
White pawns have made at least three captures towards the kingside, e.g. bxcxd5 and dxe3. Moreover, two captures fxexf or fxgxf are needed to put a white pawn on f7. However, even if we remove a black pawn, black is missing only one unit (a rook).
6.
White's check with the bishop on g4 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by White, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 5.
7.
White's bishop on g4 and rook on c3 are giving an impossible double check.
8.
4. and 6. mean both kings are in check at the same time.
9.
White bishop on b1, though it wasn't born there and couldn't have moved there.
10.
White has two bishops on white squares but has eight pawns and thus has no promoted pieces.
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Here's my 10 (I didn't look at anyone else's answers, honest)
1.
Nine black pawns.
2.
Black's h8 rook could not have left rank 8, yet black has two rooks, entailing a promotion from a tenth black pawn!
3.
Black pawns have made at least five captures, e.g. cxbxa3 and dxexfxg3, but White is missing only four units (queen, rook and two knights)
4.
Black's check with the bishop on f3 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by Black, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 3.
5.
White pawns have made at least three captures towards the kingside, e.g. bxcxd5 and dxe3. Moreover, two captures fxexf or fxgxf are needed to put a white pawn on f7. However, even if we remove a black pawn, black is missing only one unit (a rook).
6.
White's check with the bishop on g4 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by White, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 5.
7.
White's bishop on g4 and rook on c3 are giving an impossible double check.
8.
4. and 6. mean both kings are in check at the same time.
9.
White bishop on b1, though it wasn't born there and couldn't have moved there.
10.
White has two bishops on white squares but has eight pawns and thus has no promoted pieces.
Here's my 10 (I didn't look at anyone else's answers, honest)
1.
Nine black pawns.
2.
Black's h8 rook could not have left rank 8, yet black has two rooks, entailing a promotion from a tenth black pawn!
3.
Black pawns have made at least five captures, e.g. cxbxa3 and dxexfxg3, but White is missing only four units (queen, rook and two knights)
4.
Black's check with the bishop on f3 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by Black, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 3.
5.
White pawns have made at least three captures towards the kingside, e.g. bxcxd5 and dxe3. Moreover, two captures fxexf or fxgxf are needed to put a white pawn on f7. However, even if we remove a black pawn, black is missing only one unit (a rook).
6.
White's check with the bishop on g4 had to be a capture -- yet another capture by White, and this capture, too, is invalid for the same reason as given in 5.
7.
White's bishop on g4 and rook on c3 are giving an impossible double check.
8.
4. and 6. mean both kings are in check at the same time.
9.
White bishop on b1, though it wasn't born there and couldn't have moved there.
10.
White has two bishops on white squares but has eight pawns and thus has no promoted pieces.
answered yesterday
Rosie F
5,7182943
5,7182943
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
add a comment |
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
#4 is incorrect: Black last move could be Ng2-h4.
– Evargalo
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
@Evargalo Oh yes, fair point.
– Rosie F
14 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
#5 Black has both rooks, missing a knight.
– Separatrix
10 hours ago
add a comment |
1. bishop in g4 in check
2. rook in c3 in check
3. bishop in f3 in check
4. rook in a1 cant get there
5. 9 black pawns
6. pawn in a3 cant get there
7. pawn in g3 cant get there
8. pawn in f7 cant get there
9. 2 white bishop on white squares
10. pawn in e3 cant get there
11. bishop in b1 cant get there
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
add a comment |
1. bishop in g4 in check
2. rook in c3 in check
3. bishop in f3 in check
4. rook in a1 cant get there
5. 9 black pawns
6. pawn in a3 cant get there
7. pawn in g3 cant get there
8. pawn in f7 cant get there
9. 2 white bishop on white squares
10. pawn in e3 cant get there
11. bishop in b1 cant get there
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
add a comment |
1. bishop in g4 in check
2. rook in c3 in check
3. bishop in f3 in check
4. rook in a1 cant get there
5. 9 black pawns
6. pawn in a3 cant get there
7. pawn in g3 cant get there
8. pawn in f7 cant get there
9. 2 white bishop on white squares
10. pawn in e3 cant get there
11. bishop in b1 cant get there
1. bishop in g4 in check
2. rook in c3 in check
3. bishop in f3 in check
4. rook in a1 cant get there
5. 9 black pawns
6. pawn in a3 cant get there
7. pawn in g3 cant get there
8. pawn in f7 cant get there
9. 2 white bishop on white squares
10. pawn in e3 cant get there
11. bishop in b1 cant get there
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
pirate
531115
531115
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
1
1
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
Your #4 and #12 are the same. The A3 pawn could have come from the C column by capturing twice, same goes for G3 from the D column, although since black is only missing 2 pieces, one of these must be illegal.
– Nuclear Wang
yesterday
add a comment |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but here's my answer. Possibly an incomplete answer.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check from two pieces.
3.
There are 9 black pawns. Removing the one at g3 makes the pawns at a3 and b2 valid via capturing white officers.
4.
There are not enough captured black pieces for the white pawns to be in those positions. The f7 pawn in particular is in a suspicious location, though this pawn configuration is possible if there were enough black officers to capture.
5.
The white bishop on b1 is in an impossible location.
6.
The white bishops are both on white squares, but all of the pawns are present.
7.
The black rook at a1 is in an impossible location... Sort of. It would be possible via promotion, but there already too many black pawns for that to be possible.
8.
There should be a black rook in the upper-right corner because there's no way it could get out with the bishop at f8.
That's all I see. I might be lumping together multiple items by your count into one.
New contributor
add a comment |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but here's my answer. Possibly an incomplete answer.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check from two pieces.
3.
There are 9 black pawns. Removing the one at g3 makes the pawns at a3 and b2 valid via capturing white officers.
4.
There are not enough captured black pieces for the white pawns to be in those positions. The f7 pawn in particular is in a suspicious location, though this pawn configuration is possible if there were enough black officers to capture.
5.
The white bishop on b1 is in an impossible location.
6.
The white bishops are both on white squares, but all of the pawns are present.
7.
The black rook at a1 is in an impossible location... Sort of. It would be possible via promotion, but there already too many black pawns for that to be possible.
8.
There should be a black rook in the upper-right corner because there's no way it could get out with the bishop at f8.
That's all I see. I might be lumping together multiple items by your count into one.
New contributor
add a comment |
I'm not sure how you're counting, but here's my answer. Possibly an incomplete answer.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check from two pieces.
3.
There are 9 black pawns. Removing the one at g3 makes the pawns at a3 and b2 valid via capturing white officers.
4.
There are not enough captured black pieces for the white pawns to be in those positions. The f7 pawn in particular is in a suspicious location, though this pawn configuration is possible if there were enough black officers to capture.
5.
The white bishop on b1 is in an impossible location.
6.
The white bishops are both on white squares, but all of the pawns are present.
7.
The black rook at a1 is in an impossible location... Sort of. It would be possible via promotion, but there already too many black pawns for that to be possible.
8.
There should be a black rook in the upper-right corner because there's no way it could get out with the bishop at f8.
That's all I see. I might be lumping together multiple items by your count into one.
New contributor
I'm not sure how you're counting, but here's my answer. Possibly an incomplete answer.
1.
Both kings are in check.
2.
The black king is in check from two pieces.
3.
There are 9 black pawns. Removing the one at g3 makes the pawns at a3 and b2 valid via capturing white officers.
4.
There are not enough captured black pieces for the white pawns to be in those positions. The f7 pawn in particular is in a suspicious location, though this pawn configuration is possible if there were enough black officers to capture.
5.
The white bishop on b1 is in an impossible location.
6.
The white bishops are both on white squares, but all of the pawns are present.
7.
The black rook at a1 is in an impossible location... Sort of. It would be possible via promotion, but there already too many black pawns for that to be possible.
8.
There should be a black rook in the upper-right corner because there's no way it could get out with the bishop at f8.
That's all I see. I might be lumping together multiple items by your count into one.
New contributor
New contributor
answered yesterday
Beefster
1512
1512
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Black has 9 pawns.
2.
Both kings are in check.
3.
The black king is in double check. This can only happen if one of the checking pieces shielded the opponent king from the other prior to the check. This is not possible with the took on c3 and the bishop on h4.
4.
The white bishop on b1 could never have reached this field with the white pawns on a2, c2.
5.
White has two bishops on white fields. This can only happen after a pawn has been promoted. White however still has their complete set of 8 pawns.
6.
With white pawns on the e and g files and a black pawn on f6, the white pawn on f7 can reach this field only with at least 2 captures. However, black has lost only 1 piece and all pawns (in fact even one surplus pawn, he. item 1), thus never had a promoted piece.
7.
White's pawn structure implies at least 5 captures (bxc, cxd; dxe; fxe, exf) but black has lost a single piece only and no promotion so far (cf. item 6)
8.
With black pawns on e7,f6,g7,h7 and a black bishop on f8, the black rook initially on h8 could only have reached the field g8.
9.
The black king is in check so white moved last. Since the white bishop on h4 can only move along the diagonal to c8 the black king must have been in check before the move; or black put itself into check by illegally moving a pinned piece; or white moved a different piece to open the diagonal, but white does not have a piece that could have moved this way [not sure if this counts though as the checking situation is impossible in the first place, cf. items 2 & 3]
10.
Black is in an 'impossible' double check and puts white in check (cf. items 2 & 3). That can only happen if black doesn't move out of a check, thus playing illegally.
add a comment |
Black has 9 pawns.
2.
Both kings are in check.
3.
The black king is in double check. This can only happen if one of the checking pieces shielded the opponent king from the other prior to the check. This is not possible with the took on c3 and the bishop on h4.
4.
The white bishop on b1 could never have reached this field with the white pawns on a2, c2.
5.
White has two bishops on white fields. This can only happen after a pawn has been promoted. White however still has their complete set of 8 pawns.
6.
With white pawns on the e and g files and a black pawn on f6, the white pawn on f7 can reach this field only with at least 2 captures. However, black has lost only 1 piece and all pawns (in fact even one surplus pawn, he. item 1), thus never had a promoted piece.
7.
White's pawn structure implies at least 5 captures (bxc, cxd; dxe; fxe, exf) but black has lost a single piece only and no promotion so far (cf. item 6)
8.
With black pawns on e7,f6,g7,h7 and a black bishop on f8, the black rook initially on h8 could only have reached the field g8.
9.
The black king is in check so white moved last. Since the white bishop on h4 can only move along the diagonal to c8 the black king must have been in check before the move; or black put itself into check by illegally moving a pinned piece; or white moved a different piece to open the diagonal, but white does not have a piece that could have moved this way [not sure if this counts though as the checking situation is impossible in the first place, cf. items 2 & 3]
10.
Black is in an 'impossible' double check and puts white in check (cf. items 2 & 3). That can only happen if black doesn't move out of a check, thus playing illegally.
add a comment |
Black has 9 pawns.
2.
Both kings are in check.
3.
The black king is in double check. This can only happen if one of the checking pieces shielded the opponent king from the other prior to the check. This is not possible with the took on c3 and the bishop on h4.
4.
The white bishop on b1 could never have reached this field with the white pawns on a2, c2.
5.
White has two bishops on white fields. This can only happen after a pawn has been promoted. White however still has their complete set of 8 pawns.
6.
With white pawns on the e and g files and a black pawn on f6, the white pawn on f7 can reach this field only with at least 2 captures. However, black has lost only 1 piece and all pawns (in fact even one surplus pawn, he. item 1), thus never had a promoted piece.
7.
White's pawn structure implies at least 5 captures (bxc, cxd; dxe; fxe, exf) but black has lost a single piece only and no promotion so far (cf. item 6)
8.
With black pawns on e7,f6,g7,h7 and a black bishop on f8, the black rook initially on h8 could only have reached the field g8.
9.
The black king is in check so white moved last. Since the white bishop on h4 can only move along the diagonal to c8 the black king must have been in check before the move; or black put itself into check by illegally moving a pinned piece; or white moved a different piece to open the diagonal, but white does not have a piece that could have moved this way [not sure if this counts though as the checking situation is impossible in the first place, cf. items 2 & 3]
10.
Black is in an 'impossible' double check and puts white in check (cf. items 2 & 3). That can only happen if black doesn't move out of a check, thus playing illegally.
Black has 9 pawns.
2.
Both kings are in check.
3.
The black king is in double check. This can only happen if one of the checking pieces shielded the opponent king from the other prior to the check. This is not possible with the took on c3 and the bishop on h4.
4.
The white bishop on b1 could never have reached this field with the white pawns on a2, c2.
5.
White has two bishops on white fields. This can only happen after a pawn has been promoted. White however still has their complete set of 8 pawns.
6.
With white pawns on the e and g files and a black pawn on f6, the white pawn on f7 can reach this field only with at least 2 captures. However, black has lost only 1 piece and all pawns (in fact even one surplus pawn, he. item 1), thus never had a promoted piece.
7.
White's pawn structure implies at least 5 captures (bxc, cxd; dxe; fxe, exf) but black has lost a single piece only and no promotion so far (cf. item 6)
8.
With black pawns on e7,f6,g7,h7 and a black bishop on f8, the black rook initially on h8 could only have reached the field g8.
9.
The black king is in check so white moved last. Since the white bishop on h4 can only move along the diagonal to c8 the black king must have been in check before the move; or black put itself into check by illegally moving a pinned piece; or white moved a different piece to open the diagonal, but white does not have a piece that could have moved this way [not sure if this counts though as the checking situation is impossible in the first place, cf. items 2 & 3]
10.
Black is in an 'impossible' double check and puts white in check (cf. items 2 & 3). That can only happen if black doesn't move out of a check, thus playing illegally.
answered 20 hours ago
collapsar
1494
1494
add a comment |
add a comment |
I only managed to find 10 so far, here it is:
1. White bishop in B1. It's not possible in a normal game.
2. Two white bishops in the white square, while still having 8 pawns.
3. Black Rook in A1. It's not possible in a normal game.
4. Black Rook going out from H8 while Bishop hasn't moved from F8.
5. White Rook missing from A1. Stolen and replaced by black rook? :P
6. Black pawn totaling 9. It was supposed to be only 8 in a game.
7. White king under check, while black king also in check.
8. Black king under two different check, from Rook in C3 and Bishop on G4
9. White pawn structure. It just simply weird to have a pawn on F7, D5 while also having a pawn on E3, while black only missing a knight.
10. Both kings is under check, is simply impossible.
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I only managed to find 10 so far, here it is:
1. White bishop in B1. It's not possible in a normal game.
2. Two white bishops in the white square, while still having 8 pawns.
3. Black Rook in A1. It's not possible in a normal game.
4. Black Rook going out from H8 while Bishop hasn't moved from F8.
5. White Rook missing from A1. Stolen and replaced by black rook? :P
6. Black pawn totaling 9. It was supposed to be only 8 in a game.
7. White king under check, while black king also in check.
8. Black king under two different check, from Rook in C3 and Bishop on G4
9. White pawn structure. It just simply weird to have a pawn on F7, D5 while also having a pawn on E3, while black only missing a knight.
10. Both kings is under check, is simply impossible.
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
I only managed to find 10 so far, here it is:
1. White bishop in B1. It's not possible in a normal game.
2. Two white bishops in the white square, while still having 8 pawns.
3. Black Rook in A1. It's not possible in a normal game.
4. Black Rook going out from H8 while Bishop hasn't moved from F8.
5. White Rook missing from A1. Stolen and replaced by black rook? :P
6. Black pawn totaling 9. It was supposed to be only 8 in a game.
7. White king under check, while black king also in check.
8. Black king under two different check, from Rook in C3 and Bishop on G4
9. White pawn structure. It just simply weird to have a pawn on F7, D5 while also having a pawn on E3, while black only missing a knight.
10. Both kings is under check, is simply impossible.
I only managed to find 10 so far, here it is:
1. White bishop in B1. It's not possible in a normal game.
2. Two white bishops in the white square, while still having 8 pawns.
3. Black Rook in A1. It's not possible in a normal game.
4. Black Rook going out from H8 while Bishop hasn't moved from F8.
5. White Rook missing from A1. Stolen and replaced by black rook? :P
6. Black pawn totaling 9. It was supposed to be only 8 in a game.
7. White king under check, while black king also in check.
8. Black king under two different check, from Rook in C3 and Bishop on G4
9. White pawn structure. It just simply weird to have a pawn on F7, D5 while also having a pawn on E3, while black only missing a knight.
10. Both kings is under check, is simply impossible.
answered 20 hours ago
Mukyuu
273112
273112
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
Black rook in A1 is possible (in isolation) as a promoted pawn having captured the White rook normally there. #7 and #10 are duplicates.
– Separatrix
9 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
@Separatrix: Black has 9 pawns (in itself illegal), however, so there has not been a promotion. Or, if there was, black has been playing with at least 10 pawns at some moment in time, adding another illegal pawn (unless surplus pawns count as a single rule violation w/o regard to their number).
– collapsar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Definitely illegal
1.
Black has 9 pawns
2.
Rook a1 could be legal in isolation as a promoted pawn, but in light of #1, I'm declaring it illegal
3.
Bishop b1 cannot get there
4.
Both white bishops are on white, white has 8 pawns, one bishop is illegal
5.
Both kings are in check
6.
Black king is in illegal double check, could not be discovered by legal movement of either offending piece
7.
Black rook starting h8 could not have legally escaped, due to number of remaining black pawns, absence of rook considered illegal
8.
White pawns are at least 3 places off home columns, black still has 16 pieces, though missing a knight, at least two illegal places off home
9.
Pawn f7 is illegal, cannot have captured the required 2 pieces to return to home column behind black pawn as black not missing enough pieces
10.
Even assuming pawn g3 to be the interloper, black pawns are a minimum of 4 places off home column, white is missing 4 pieces, but rook a1 could only have been captured by a knight or queen, at least one illegal place off home
Not illegal but might look it
1.
Bishop f3 check could be discovered by movement of knight h4 from g2, otherwise it's really hard to get into that position
- This ties into illegal #10
Assuming bishop b1 to have been placed there at the start of the game, white rook starting a1 could not have legally escaped, but could have been captured by a knight or queen. Black bishop could not have been used.
add a comment |
Definitely illegal
1.
Black has 9 pawns
2.
Rook a1 could be legal in isolation as a promoted pawn, but in light of #1, I'm declaring it illegal
3.
Bishop b1 cannot get there
4.
Both white bishops are on white, white has 8 pawns, one bishop is illegal
5.
Both kings are in check
6.
Black king is in illegal double check, could not be discovered by legal movement of either offending piece
7.
Black rook starting h8 could not have legally escaped, due to number of remaining black pawns, absence of rook considered illegal
8.
White pawns are at least 3 places off home columns, black still has 16 pieces, though missing a knight, at least two illegal places off home
9.
Pawn f7 is illegal, cannot have captured the required 2 pieces to return to home column behind black pawn as black not missing enough pieces
10.
Even assuming pawn g3 to be the interloper, black pawns are a minimum of 4 places off home column, white is missing 4 pieces, but rook a1 could only have been captured by a knight or queen, at least one illegal place off home
Not illegal but might look it
1.
Bishop f3 check could be discovered by movement of knight h4 from g2, otherwise it's really hard to get into that position
- This ties into illegal #10
Assuming bishop b1 to have been placed there at the start of the game, white rook starting a1 could not have legally escaped, but could have been captured by a knight or queen. Black bishop could not have been used.
add a comment |
Definitely illegal
1.
Black has 9 pawns
2.
Rook a1 could be legal in isolation as a promoted pawn, but in light of #1, I'm declaring it illegal
3.
Bishop b1 cannot get there
4.
Both white bishops are on white, white has 8 pawns, one bishop is illegal
5.
Both kings are in check
6.
Black king is in illegal double check, could not be discovered by legal movement of either offending piece
7.
Black rook starting h8 could not have legally escaped, due to number of remaining black pawns, absence of rook considered illegal
8.
White pawns are at least 3 places off home columns, black still has 16 pieces, though missing a knight, at least two illegal places off home
9.
Pawn f7 is illegal, cannot have captured the required 2 pieces to return to home column behind black pawn as black not missing enough pieces
10.
Even assuming pawn g3 to be the interloper, black pawns are a minimum of 4 places off home column, white is missing 4 pieces, but rook a1 could only have been captured by a knight or queen, at least one illegal place off home
Not illegal but might look it
1.
Bishop f3 check could be discovered by movement of knight h4 from g2, otherwise it's really hard to get into that position
- This ties into illegal #10
Assuming bishop b1 to have been placed there at the start of the game, white rook starting a1 could not have legally escaped, but could have been captured by a knight or queen. Black bishop could not have been used.
Definitely illegal
1.
Black has 9 pawns
2.
Rook a1 could be legal in isolation as a promoted pawn, but in light of #1, I'm declaring it illegal
3.
Bishop b1 cannot get there
4.
Both white bishops are on white, white has 8 pawns, one bishop is illegal
5.
Both kings are in check
6.
Black king is in illegal double check, could not be discovered by legal movement of either offending piece
7.
Black rook starting h8 could not have legally escaped, due to number of remaining black pawns, absence of rook considered illegal
8.
White pawns are at least 3 places off home columns, black still has 16 pieces, though missing a knight, at least two illegal places off home
9.
Pawn f7 is illegal, cannot have captured the required 2 pieces to return to home column behind black pawn as black not missing enough pieces
10.
Even assuming pawn g3 to be the interloper, black pawns are a minimum of 4 places off home column, white is missing 4 pieces, but rook a1 could only have been captured by a knight or queen, at least one illegal place off home
Not illegal but might look it
1.
Bishop f3 check could be discovered by movement of knight h4 from g2, otherwise it's really hard to get into that position
- This ties into illegal #10
Assuming bishop b1 to have been placed there at the start of the game, white rook starting a1 could not have legally escaped, but could have been captured by a knight or queen. Black bishop could not have been used.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
Separatrix
27116
27116
add a comment |
add a comment |
Bb1, no legal way to reach there
Ra1, no legal way to reach there, due to Bb1
Kh1, in check, other King in check
Kc8, in double check, other King in check
f7, no legal way to reach there
Bf8, no legal way to reach there
2 white bishops, with 8 pawns. Does this count as two illegals?
New contributor
add a comment |
Bb1, no legal way to reach there
Ra1, no legal way to reach there, due to Bb1
Kh1, in check, other King in check
Kc8, in double check, other King in check
f7, no legal way to reach there
Bf8, no legal way to reach there
2 white bishops, with 8 pawns. Does this count as two illegals?
New contributor
add a comment |
Bb1, no legal way to reach there
Ra1, no legal way to reach there, due to Bb1
Kh1, in check, other King in check
Kc8, in double check, other King in check
f7, no legal way to reach there
Bf8, no legal way to reach there
2 white bishops, with 8 pawns. Does this count as two illegals?
New contributor
Bb1, no legal way to reach there
Ra1, no legal way to reach there, due to Bb1
Kh1, in check, other King in check
Kc8, in double check, other King in check
f7, no legal way to reach there
Bf8, no legal way to reach there
2 white bishops, with 8 pawns. Does this count as two illegals?
New contributor
New contributor
answered 5 hours ago
Kashyap
1213
1213
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78081%2fa-very-illegal-position%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
i assume you mean for us to find the illegal ways and not the legal ways
– AHKieran
yesterday
1
@AHKieran fixed that little typo :P
– Excited Raichu
yesterday
1
It might help if you had a more specific definition of what a "way the position is illegal" consists of. I think I'm using a different definition, which is why I can only find 8.
– isaacg
22 hours ago
Obviously there's no way for the queen to still be on the board.
– Steve
3 hours ago