RewanDemontay wrote:
#1603-Illegal, as there is no way that the black queen was able to move to g7 without the white king staying in check for at least one turn.
You are correct that it is illegal, however Black could have played Qxg7+.
Is this position legal?
Sort:
I’ve figured out 2 ways to prove #1603 illegal.
What’s the second one then?
#1603: How did the black king reach c1?
Ooooohhhh. Snice find!
One more: How did White play axb3?
#1612-The doubled black pawns are legal-the two missing white pawns could have simply taken black pieces to get over to double the black pawns. However, the black queens has to have captured one of them for it to legally be where it is. That leaves only one missing white piece to double two black pawns, which is impossible. Thus this is an illegal position.
Much more trickier than the other recent positions so far! I congratulate you Trexler3241!
Then please explain why you think so.
Did you actually read my comment? I said that that is possible, but it canno be for other reasons.
Haha, that’s fine! I have missed things as well before.
This is a VERY HARD position!
That’s easily legal. The two original bishops plus 8 promoted ones per side. Want proof?
See here: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/21171/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-passed-pawns-in-a-position
Ans here: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24088/what-are-the-shortest-possible-games-with-a-20-bishops-b-20-knights-and-c-2
First link: Black is missing a Bishop.
Second link: Not the position (one less dark square Bishop, one more light square Bishop)
It’s not meant to be exaxt. It’s just general proof.
Bishop-theme position!
#1626-Illegal, as the white bishop on a8 couldn’t have captured a piece to deliver mate from where it stands, making black king illegally in check/mate for at least one turn.
#1603-Illegal, as there is no way that the black queen was able to move to g7 without the white king staying in check for at least one turn.