no you can't get a triple check.
Possibility of a Triple check???
Sort:
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).
....but a x-ray double check is doable, which is almost the same as a +++ . Here I'll show u....now just check w/ the Kn....
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).
Actually, the piece moving does not have to give check.
Here's a prime example:
White's last move was Bg1-h2 check.
If Black plays e7-e5, White can give double-check without checking with the piece that moves. dxe6 en passant is a double-discovery, but the pawn that moved doesn't give check.
A triple is impossible because for this to be a triple, the King would have to be on the 7th rank, not the 6th, and then since en passant always occurs on the 5th rank, the moving pawn and the captured pawn to create the double discover would have to be 2 files apart and that is impossible.
So a Triple Check is physically impossible, but a double-check without the piece you move giving check IS POSSIBLE!
ThrillerFan wrote:
Idxe6 en passant is a double-discovery, but the pawn that moved doesn't give check.
Yes, that's a clever exception, thanks. (However, note that I wrote "piece", not "pawn or unit": I was stating my assumptions beforehand.) At least we still agree on the answer to the main question.
It is *almost* possible with en passant ideas. Consider the following situation:
If knights weren't moving as usual, but, instead, could make many jumps at once in a given direction, unless blocked by pieces, then black moving his pawn by 2 squares and white taking en passant would result in a triple check. Alas, the only piece not moving in straight lines, the knight, only can jump once per move, making triple check impossible. No matter what you do, you are only going to deliver checks over two diagonals, and knight won't be much of a help.
Or if there were a special castling rule called O-O-O-O...
White to play and triple check.
1. O-O-O-O+!
MayCaesar wrote:
It is *almost* possible with en passant ideas. Consider the following situation:
If knights weren't moving as usual, but, instead, could make many jumps at once in a given direction, unless blocked by pieces, then black moving his pawn by 2 squares and white taking en passant would result in a triple check. Alas, the only piece not moving in straight lines, the knight, only can jump once per move, making triple check impossible. No matter what you do, you are only going to deliver checks over two diagonals, and knight won't be much of a help.
Nope, your logic is still severely flawed.
If the Knights could make extended moves as long as they go in the same direction, like Ng1-f3 or Ng1-e5 or Ng1-d7, then your pawn move you propose would be illegal because the Black king is currently in check by the Knight! So e7-e5 would be illegal!
You say "unless blocked by pieces". Well, since Knights jump, the only way to block is to place a White piece in its path. Otherwise it can of course capture anything in its trail that's Black!
Here you go, I found you a triple check!
Atomic chess, which is I believe Wild 27 on ICC. The rules are that if a pawn or piece is captured, then the capturing piece comes off the board, the captured piece comes off the board, and any piece (but not pawn) on the 8 squares that surround the captured piece, and that includes the King. If the King is captured, that player loses. So like 1.Nf3 Nc6 2.Ng5 Nb4 3.Nxf7 is 1-0 because the f7 pawn, White Knight, g8-Knight, f8-Bishop, and e8-King are all gone!
So in the diagram above, after 1.Nxe6, the White Knight, Black Knight, Black Bishop, Black Queen, and Black Rook all disappear, and Black is in Triple Check!
ThrillerFan wrote:
MayCaesar wrote:
It is *almost* possible with en passant ideas. Consider the following situation:
If knights weren't moving as usual, but, instead, could make many jumps at once in a given direction, unless blocked by pieces, then black moving his pawn by 2 squares and white taking en passant would result in a triple check. Alas, the only piece not moving in straight lines, the knight, only can jump once per move, making triple check impossible. No matter what you do, you are only going to deliver checks over two diagonals, and knight won't be much of a help.
Nope, your logic is still severely flawed.
If the Knights could make extended moves as long as they go in the same direction, like Ng1-f3 or Ng1-e5 or Ng1-d7, then your pawn move you propose would be illegal because the Black king is currently in check by the Knight! So e7-e5 would be illegal!
You say "unless blocked by pieces". Well, since Knights jump, the only way to block is to place a White piece in its path. Otherwise it can of course capture anything in its trail that's Black!
The idea is this: white gives a check with the "long-range knight" on the previous move (1. Nd3+), black defends from this check (1...e5; it protects the king, because the route d3-e5-f7 is blocked by the pawn, hence the knight isn't threatening the king any more), and then white takes en-passant. You just need to assume that the knight powerlines can be blocked by pieces, just as much as rook, bishop and queen powerlines.
And, as Sqod mentioned, special castling rules could also make this possible. And yes, special variations, such as Atomic chess, could do that as well. In Quantum chess, even more than triple checkmates are probably possible!
A quadruple check is also possible in xiangqi (Chinese chess).
Perhaps if the cannon is introduced into international chess, a triple check may be seen.
Double discovered check:
Those are really good opinions. And @ThrillerFan, that is a very nice example. But if we're looking only at standard chess...
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 found a triple check everyone !!....(but one catch....it hasta be in blitz 
)
....and 1...d5
2. pxp e.p. +++
i could not find it sorry
White to move
Double checks are really powerful, as we know. They are foundations for smothered mate and many other beautiful attacks.
The above position is absolutely legal. Checking with an engine, it finds no error in the calculation and says Kb6 is the move. But is it really possible? Can't a tricky en passant or a pawn promotion execute a triple check some way?