NCP: Octagon

Sort:
ChessMasterGS
playnmake wrote:
grable wrote:

Lots of fun. I'm not sure if everyone commenting "bUT tHeRE's TEaMiNG," above knows that it's Ox2, but that definitely goes a long way to mitigating any potential double-attacks. Maybe it's not perfectly balanced, but it's closer to being an NCP than a WoF. We like it!

 

 

Now, can anyone show me how to give a checkmate with R+K vs K?

Finally I got accepted, and this was my 1st NPC game

I think I will create NPCs from now on

And plz stop playing colosseum for the love of god… 

grable

Obviously, I can checkmate K vs K+R on an 8x8 board lol, I was talking about in this position.

 

...unless this is just a troll, in which case, touché.

ChessMasterGS

imo grable it seems like you're just saying this should be for high-level players

ChessMasterGS

You can't turn on CTK in this position lmao

home456are

Why are you showing a 2pc board in this 4pc club?? 2pc is not related to the club.

Johnplaysvariants

our club is 4pc not 2pc.

ChessMasterGS

It's a joke and grable doesn't even mind, I don't understand you all either

bsrti

After some analysis, I concluded that a rook checkmate is definitely possible, but in some extreme positions cannot be forced within 50 moves.

grable
bsrti wrote:

After some analysis, I concluded that a rook checkmate is definitely possible, but in some extreme positions cannot be forced within 50 moves.

 

I think I found it for just 2 players. 2 or 3 lone kings vs. K+R is almost certainly unsolvable, and isn't forced within 50 moves. Here's what I have:

 

You want this position with R to move. It's easy to force, even if you mess up move order, triangulate in position until it's your move.

 

The move is to check the B king. Two lines from there:

 

or:

 

Am I wrong?

stupnik_2_0

Because you are grable, probably yes XD

Johnplaysvariants

after cocluding for 1 hour, i found that grable was right

Johnplaysvariants

yes

try this with me, kevin

TheUltraTrap
bsrti wrote:

is definitely possible, but in some extreme positions cannot be forced within 50 moves.

Could someone give examples?

playnmake
 
 
 

 

samuelysfung
stupnik_2_0 wrote:
playnmake je napisao/la:
CGA wrote:
e(3log12*pi(432)^89)*6.941e-235 < 70 ? ..yes!
Hooray! You've met all the requirements!

It would be easier if you did 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=12

What is derivative of x+sqrt(x)tg(x)/arsh(x)?

1+{[tan(x)+2x*sec^2(x)]/2sqrt(x)arcsinh(x)}-[sqrt(x)tan(x)]/sqrt(1+x^2)[arcsinh(x)]^2.

Now integrate it and tell me if I’m wrong.

samuelysfung
MrXX2018 wrote:
playnmake написал:
CGA wrote:
e(3log12*pi(432)^89)*6.941e-235 < 70 ? ..yes!
Hooray! You've met all the requirements!

 

 

It depends on the log base

stupnik_2_0
samuelysfung je napisao/la:
stupnik_2_0 wrote:
playnmake je napisao/la:
CGA wrote:
e(3log12*pi(432)^89)*6.941e-235 < 70 ? ..yes!
Hooray! You've met all the requirements!

It would be easier if you did 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=12

What is derivative of x+sqrt(x)tg(x)/arsh(x)?

1+{[tan(x)+2x*sec^2(x)]/2sqrt(x)arcsinh(x)}-[sqrt(x)tan(x)]/sqrt(1+x^2)[arcsinh(x)]^2.

Now integrate it and tell me if I’m wrong.

No, thanks grin.png. I believe your answer is correct

stupnik_2_0
samuelysfung je napisao/la:
MrXX2018 wrote:
playnmake написал:
CGA wrote:
e(3log12*pi(432)^89)*6.941e-235 < 70 ? ..yes!
Hooray! You've met all the requirements!

 

 

It depends on the log base

Because it just says log, base is probably 10

Johnplaysvariants

ok

samuelysfung
stupnik_2_0 wrote:
samuelysfung je napisao/la:
stupnik_2_0 wrote:
playnmake je napisao/la:
CGA wrote:
e(3log12*pi(432)^89)*6.941e-235 < 70 ? ..yes!
Hooray! You've met all the requirements!

It would be easier if you did 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=12

What is derivative of x+sqrt(x)tg(x)/arsh(x)?

1+{[tan(x)+2x*sec^2(x)]/2sqrt(x)arcsinh(x)}-[sqrt(x)tan(x)]/sqrt(1+x^2)[arcsinh(x)]^2.

Now integrate it and tell me if I’m wrong.

No, thanks . I believe your answer is correct

lol