... How is this possible again?
Possibility of a Triple check???
Sort:
That is not possible. 
josephyossi wrote:
Sqod wrote:
No, it's not possible. I admit it takes some thinking to reason it out.
Even to get a double check a discovered check is required, and in the case of double check both the piece moving and the piece being unshielded must give check. Therefore even if the moving piece promoted in that move, that would just mean the moving/promoting piece is giving only a single check, which it was already doing in the previous scenario, so new additional check is added.
Due to geometrical constraints, two lines of converging force cannot be uncovered at the same time by a moved piece, only diverging lines of force, which rules out a triple check from an ordinary discovered attack, though the special chess rules (castling and en passant) must still be considered.
If castling could be done on other than the back rank there might be a possibility of triple check, but castling is constrained to the back rank so that is pointless to consider, except as an academic exercise. (Anybody want to try to create such a castling example on say the 3rd rank?)
As for en passant, that's trickier. Triple check might be possible if the capturing pawn could promote in that move (anybody want to try to create such a theoretical example?), but an en passant must always end with the capturing pawn on the 6th rank, never the 8th rank, so scenario that is ruled out. Other possibilities are ruled out by similiar considerations, such as a new line of attack being opened up, because the capturing pawn will either block it, or else the position is equivalent to a regular pawn capture (which is why en passant is notated as if an earlier regular pawn capture were being done).
long lecture lol
I've seen (and delivered) much longer ones.
Like that staff stuff?
aravinds_ll wrote:
Like that staff stuff?
Like a lot of stuff. I seem to be prone to delivering long lectures in general.
You should have become a lecturer!
I mean, what you are now isn't bad. But you know, the other one would have been more standard.
Sry
Jul 31, 2017
0
#32
Notice that neither a King nor a Queen can be moved to deliver a Double Check ?
Jul 31, 2017
0
#34
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
I found a triple check everyone !!....(but one catch....it hasta be in blitz )
....and 1...d5
2. pxp e.p. +++
You could call it a triple check
Bad_Dobby_Fischer wrote:
is that whuy you have a triple '?' in the title?
That was unintentional. But thanks for pointing that out.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
I'll call #17 a Undiscovered Discovered Triple Check.
Not exactly. d5 is illegal 'cause the pawn is pinned.
Jul 31, 2017
0
#37
Which brings up a interesting point....& TY aravinds !
See that I said blitz 'cuz alotta illegal moves are made in blitz & it's up the your opponent to catch them 'cuz the TD isn't at ready. Otherwise, FIDE rules say keep on playing.
The question is....tho' it's illegal, it CAN result in a triple check....right ? So, wouldn't that suffice as a +++ if the white side accepted the en passant ?
'Cuz once white DOES NOT call it out as illegal, then it IS a potential triple check !
So, once black pushes her/his pawn to d5, then that sets up a +++, if white doesn't see it either & play just resumes. White captures w/ pawn (e.p.), then it holds as a true & legal Triple Check !
Yay....I mighta done it !
****
Article 4.8 (in effect until 07/01/17...so expired, but may still hold up)
A player forfeits his right to claim against his opponent’s violation of Articles 4.1 – 4.7 once the player touches a piece with the intention of moving or capturing it.
Oh kay.
Jul 31, 2017
0
#39
Sqod wrote:
No, it's not possible. I admit it takes some thinking to reason it out.
Even to get a double check a discovered check is required, and in the case of double check both the piece moving and the piece being unshielded must give check. Therefore even if the moving piece promoted in that move, that would just mean the moving/promoting piece is giving only a single check, which it was already doing in the previous scenario, so new additional check is added.
Due to geometrical constraints, two lines of converging force cannot be uncovered at the same time by a moved piece, only diverging lines of force, which rules out a triple check from an ordinary discovered attack, though the special chess rules (castling and en passant) must still be considered.
If castling could be done on other than the back rank there might be a possibility of triple check, but castling is constrained to the back rank so that is pointless to consider, except as an academic exercise. (Anybody want to try to create such a castling example on say the 3rd rank?)
As for en passant, that's trickier. Triple check might be possible if the capturing pawn could promote in that move (anybody want to try to create such a theoretical example?), but an en passant must always end with the capturing pawn on the 6th rank, never the 8th rank, so scenario that is ruled out. Other possibilities are ruled out by similiar considerations, such as a new line of attack being opened up, because the capturing pawn will either block it, or else the position is equivalent to a regular pawn capture (which is why en passant is notated as if an earlier regular pawn capture were being done).
For most moves, it it trivial that a triple check is impossible. The reason is that a move can only unobstruct a single line to the opposing king and give a single check itself. This makes two checks maximum.
e.p. is the most interesting example, since a pawn unobstructs some possible checking lines, removes a pawn that could itself be blocking a checking line and can itself give check. The reason this cannot make a triple check is that if the capturing pawn checks, the captured pawn is removed from a knight's move away from the opposing king. Hence there are no lines through it that could be unblocked by the capture. So only two of the three possible checks produced are possible at the same time.
Meanwhile, here is a rare example of hexadecimal check.
@aa-ron1235, not exactly a triple check, 'cause the queen isn't checking.
What check would this be then?