It’s not the amount of moves meant to get to that position but it’s that both bishops are on black squares…
That's not why the position is illegal in Thai chess. The black queen starts on d8 and moves diagonally, so it can't get to a light square.
It’s not the amount of moves meant to get to that position but it’s that both bishops are on black squares…
That's not why the position is illegal in Thai chess. The black queen starts on d8 and moves diagonally, so it can't get to a light square.
Touché. (I must have been thinking of FRTC.)
I forgot to attribute the position I first posted by the way. It appeared as A.G.Buchanan
The Problemist, July 2001
#5843
The illegality proof will be similar to the one December_TwentyNine is about to give us for the previous position. This time White has made an even number of moves and Black an odd number.
#5816 updated. please check it
Illegal. The white pawns made five captures, but Black is only missing four men.
#5847
Illegal position. Black's only retraction to uncheck the white king is Kc6-b6. The only legal double check by White before the king's move would be from a position like the one below, but it's an illegal position because all squares on the 6th rank are guarded by unmoved black pawns, and the white king could never have passed the 5th rank. Removing either kingside pawn makes the position legal.
#5844
Illegal position. Black's only retraction to uncheck the white king is Pg5-g7, which locks in the black bishop at f8.
The configuration on the queen side is easily legal, and is probably there to distract the solver.
Remove the d5 pawn, and the position is legal.
#5844
Illegal position. Black's only retraction to uncheck the white king is Pg5-g7, which locks in the black bishop at f8.
The configuration on the queen side is easily legal, and is probably there to distract the solver.
Remove the d5 pawn, and the position is legal.
Isn’t this the illegal position contest?
Isn’t this the illegal position contest?
It is. People post an illegal position that looks like it could be legal. Other people explain what makes the position illegal.
Do you have a good one?
Well, that one's a little too obvious, since the white h1 rook doesn't have a way to get out. You should try to make one where the illegality explanation is more complicated.
I taught my people how to walk backwards. Deal with it.
I taught my people how to walk backwards. Deal with it.
Weren't you trying to make an illegal position? You would only need one backward pawn move to reach the position.
I taught my people how to walk backwards. Deal with it.
Weren't you trying to make an illegal position? You would only need one backward pawn move to reach the position.
I made a knight do a backflip…..
I doubt the latter statement, but agreed; the position could be legal under some local variants of chess.
There are many similar instances. For example this is an illegal chess position but would be legal in Thai chess.
Thread owner @James1011James1011 also has an American flag next to his user name, so perhaps he could could clarify under which chess laws the positions are meant to be illegal. (In the absence of the American flag FIDE laws would be the natural assumption.)
It’s not the amount of moves meant to get to that position but it’s that both bishops are on black squares…
Bishops are allowed to move forward one square in Thai chess, so it's OK to have two bishops on the same coloured squares without a promotion.