I thought it was 204. Yes, I know this off the top of my head.
Much more interesting is the number of rectangles.
Edit: I see all you smart people are ahead of me on this one. But the pound of feathers posts reminds me of an interesing question:
Does a fluid ounce of water weigh more or less than an ounce?
Almost a trick question, because it seems the unit of measurement has been made more complicated than it is, if one notices the different terminology on packaging.
http://www.tricorbraun.com/article/330/Fluid-Ounce-vs-Net-Weight-Ounce-Measurements.aspx
I'll go with what my dealer tells me-"an ounce is an ounce!"
Almost a trick question, because it seems the unit of measurement has been made more complicated than it is, if one notices the different terminology on packaging.
http://www.tricorbraun.com/article/330/Fluid-Ounce-vs-Net-Weight-Ounce-Measurements.aspx
I'll go with what my dealer tells me-"an ounce is an ounce!"
FORCE THEM ALL INTO METRIC ! HERETICS !
... How many rectangles on a chess board?
I'll take a guess. 652
Wait, that's wrong, let me guess again lol.
They aren't even rectangles.
Ok 1296 is my guess.
Looking it up, this is correct. My method was cumbersome compared to what you can simplify it into. Interestingly it's also the sum of the cubes in integers 1 through 8 e.g. 8^3+7^3+. . . +1^3
Hmmm, the sum of the cubes in integers 1 through 8 is also the number of cubest in an 8 by 8 by 8 cube... Perhaps the number of rectangular prisms in an 8 by 8 by 8 cube is the same as the number of 4D Cubes in an 8 by 8 by 8 by 8 4D cube, which would be 1^4+2^4+3^4.....+7^4+8^4.
I thought it was 204. Yes, I know this off the top of my head.
Much more interesting is the number of rectangles.
Edit: I see all you smart people are ahead of me on this one. But the pound of feathers posts reminds me of an interesing question:
Does a fluid ounce of water weigh more or less than an ounce?
Slightly more, I believe.
#only64matter
If a knight makes a move to fork the opponent's pieces, how many pieces can it simultaneously fork?
7
I was thinking seven -- the pitfall answer being eight.
And it is possible for a knight to fork an enemy knight if it is pinned, however without underpromotion it is not possible for a knight to fork two bishops (as you correctly surmised).
With pawn promotions, what the pieces are is moot.
One memory trick I use with my granddaughters to help them remember how the knight moves, is to tell them it always lands on a different color than the square it is on when it jumps.
Great tip, might pinch that one the next time I teach a child to play. :)
ThrillerFan has his trophy
If it can be considered possible for a knight to fork an enemy knight, then the answer is seven (not counting pawns). If not, then five, KQBRR.
What about promoted pieces? You have also fogotten pawns and one of the bishops.So the answer is seven because you can't count the square that the knight came from
this is where wanna-be math guinuses come to flex there musles...
I learned that everyone here knows nothing about math and just uses google to impress people...
lol
The 204 number includes the large 8x8 square. A border cannot be assumed.
Ever seen a chessboard WITHOUT one?
64
read the whole opening post, not just the title.
The really big question is, how many squares are on chess.com?
... and how many have of them have contributed to this thread?
How is the annotation done for the larger squares?