Is this position legal?
Sort:
FancyKnight wrote:
Yes, but you also have to retract the bK out of that corner before all the white pawns come back home.
Hmm, so maybe a quick uncap on g6 so white has something to move.
So I was fooling around some, and now my earlier reboot has a twin. Again, can white castle?
@Remellion:
No, in order for the rook to get to a1 you have to move your king.
Wrong answer! Try again. Notice there are 3 black rooks.
Legal?
Nochewycandy: Trivially legal. 8 bishops, at least 6 were pawns.
Eeyores: Holy heck that's complicated, but very familiar somehow. Answer: It's illegal, since after all the retractions the bBh7 must've been promoted on d1 from Ph7 (4 captures), and white can feed it 4 men (wRe6 is promoted, wRh1 died in the cage)... but also needs a 5th to double the d-pawns. So white cannot sac enough, and it's illegal.
no. black king is in double-check and no single piece could reveal both checks.
SJM1 wrote:
no. black king is in double-check and no single piece could reveal both checks.
It could. b5 axb6.
@SJM1: It's not an illegal double check. Pawns are tricky beings.
@mashanator: I did intend the subtlety... and your answer is unfortunately wrong. Your logic is an almost complete answer to the twin I previously posted (and castling is legal there) but it fails here. Are you sure that to shield the king, only a black knight on c1 suffices?
The position was a vicious little edit to its twin that I came up with today. It may be a tad on the difficult side.
And I have checked this with a proof game. When composers ask if something is possible, usually it is possible simply because the composer wants to show off some brilliant sequence. ;-) So happy hunting for it!
Scottrf wrote:
SJM1 wrote:
no. black king is in double-check and no single piece could reveal both checks.
It could. b5 axb6.
doesn't work.
if the previous move was b5, then somehow Bf1 just checked the king. Must have been a revealed check since no way Bf1 can move to f1 except along the f1-a6 diagonal.
But the only piece that could have moved to allow that is the white K, and the only two squares he could have moved from are also in double check.
@SJM1: Oh really? e4 dxe3 e.p. ;) And the logic continues, but I'd be spoonfeeding.
SJM1 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
SJM1 wrote:
no. black king is in double-check and no single piece could reveal both checks.
It could. b5 axb6.
doesn't work.
if the previous move was b5, then somehow Bf1 just checked the king. Must have been a revealed check since no way Bf1 can move to f1 except along the f1-a6 diagonal.
But the only piece that could have moved to allow that is the white K, and the only two squares he could have moved from are also in double check.
Do you know en passant?
Remellion wrote:
@SJM1: Oh really? e4 dxe3 e.p. ;) And the logic continues, but I'd be spoonfeeding.
if there was a black pawn on d4 (which allows dxe3) then e4 isn't a legal move. K would have been in check.
SJM1 wrote:
Remellion wrote:
@SJM1: Oh really? e4 dxe3 e.p. ;) And the logic continues, but I'd be spoonfeeding.
if there was a black pawn on d4 (which allows dxe3) then e4 isn't a legal move. K would have been in check.
Not if the pawn was still on a5.
e4 dxe3 e.p. b5 axb6 e.p.
Evidently I have to spoonfeed.
But the given position is still illegal, for another different reason, nothing to do with the checks.
#317: Trivially. Knights can capture the pawns to unlock pieces, and then rooks and kings can capture the other pieces, and it's trivial to do the remaining lock.
Meanwhile, is this position legal?