Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Chess Puzzle


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1

    LYCAN148

    What is the maximum amout of pieces that can be placed on a chess board in a LEGAL POSITION so that no piece attacks any other?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #2

    LYCAN148

    Um...no,the white and black pieces can't attack each other

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #3

    Tyzer

    Are we talking "no black piece attacks a white piece and vice versa" here, or are we talking "no piece attacks or defends any other piece here"? And do you want both black and white pieces, or just one colour? (although in the latter scenario, it doesn't matter what colour the pieces are...)

     

    EDIT: Oh wait, it does matter, there's the question of the pawns.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #4

    LYCAN148

    We are talking "no piece attacks or defends any other piece here"

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #5

    kco

    got 22

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #6

    Tyzer

    Okay. So both black and white pieces, or just one colour?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #7

    rooperi

    Also got 22

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #8

    LYCAN148

    Both,and 22 is not the most,,but,can you show it?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #9

    rooperi

    Oh, mine's wrong, the pawns are defending other pawns....

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #10

    LYCAN148

    rooperi wrote:

    Oh, mine's wrong, the pawns are defending other pawns....


    lol

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #11

    rooperi

    try again.... I'm not sure this position can be reached?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #12

    kco

    mine is a little different to rooperi, I put the  row of pawns on the very first and last row  on the board  

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #13

    LYCAN148

    The position is good,but 22 is a few pieces short...

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #14

    bondiggity

    That is most definitely not a Legal position, if legal is to be meant reached through a game of chess

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #15

    LYCAN148

    bondiggity wrote:

    That is most definitely not a Legal position, if legal is to be meant reached through a game of chess


    Yes

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #16

    bondiggity

    Interesting puzzle. Maybe in the morning I'll look at it again

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #17

    LYCAN148

    Its not 24 either,its higher

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #18

    Tyzer

    Looks like fun. If there's more than 24 then that means there are more bishops or rooks on the board, which I'm struggling with at the moment...those things eat up loads of room. And don't even get me started on the queens.

     

    EDIT: A position with 26 pieces...letting the pawns get behind each other allowed me to squeeze in a few more pawns. The ideas I used were 1. to minimize the number of squares each piece defends (knights will only defend two squares when placed in the corner, and bishops will only cover 7 squares when placed anywhere along the edges or corners) and 2. to overlap the defended areas as much as possible (hence I placed the bishops where they would overlap with the knight's defended squares).

     

    But I doubt it's a legal position, because I can't figure out a way to set up that pawn formation with less than 4 captures per side (there are only 3 pieces off the board for each side, so it doesn't seem possible).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    FURTHER EDIT: Oh wait, it can be made legal simply by breaking the symmetry a little like this, which requires only 3 captures per side.

    But I still cannot confirm whether 26 is the maximum...although I sincerely hope it is, since the only pieces left to bring in now are the rooks and queens. Given that each rook will eat up 14 squares and the queen at least 21 squares, it seems really difficult...although now that I look at the final position, it seems there could be a way to squeeze in a single rook on the g-file (most likely g2 or g7) with a little rearrangement of the pieces. Then again, that would mean one less capture is available, screwing up the pawn structure again. Gah.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #19

    LYCAN148

    WEll...actually it IS more than 26

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #20

    Tyzer

    LYCAN148 wrote:

    WEll...actually it IS more than 26


    *facepalms* Oh dear...time to break out the rooks.


Back to Top

Post your reply: