Q sac ftw
a Chess960 puzzle
Sort:
chess 960 has the best puzzles in my opinion
Nov 9, 2020
0
#5
ok, so if I had to be honest, it wasn't really that easy, but that's because (excuse alert) I didn't feel like trying
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
I'd say this is pretty big...
Cool
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
I'd say this is pretty big...
Cool
Now I stop because its getting big
Epiloque wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
I'd say this is pretty big...
Cool
Now I stop because its getting big
No
Horsie thinks its shrinking how.
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
I'd say this is pretty big...
Cool
Now I stop because its getting big
No
Horsie thinks its shrinking how.
what?
Yes, its getting smaller!
Horsie likes small quote. Horsie doesn't know definition.
But horsie will stop.
Bruh
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
how does your username work?
@friendlyxdemon
I am a friendly demon?
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
me is confooz
Bruh
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Cheer up, man! 
Horsie like be confuzzle two! Horsie likes you as fweindz!
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Dah_Happyhoppyhorsi3 wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
Epiloque wrote:
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I dunno if it's that easy, but it's pretty easy
It is that easy especially since the guy said queen sac in the 3rd post
yeah, but that's not the puzzle's fault, that's the forum's fault
No U
no epiloque.
You see, I am using an advanced tactic.
You cannot say "no u" back, because this statement was in the third person, therefore, it is not directed at a person, but rather about a person.
Just remember, I am the superior tactician.
fk. I can't say no u back. But I can do this...
Remember this: I am the superior tactician. I reversed it back to you then skipped you, stopping any defenses or attacks you could muster up. You stole my catchphrase, so this is what had to be done.
You can't reverse something said in the third person.
Now you are still saying no epiloque
yes you can.
reversing something with no perspective cannot be done.
Yes it can I just did it. You do not need a perspective to reverse something
The perspective does not matter in the sentence "no epiloque"
Therefore, epiloque is still saying "no epiloque
Not true. This is that reversed: Epiloque is saying:no
the reverse of no epiloque is
euqolipe on
Can we create a big quote?
I'd say this is pretty big...
Cool
Now I stop because its getting big
No
Horsie thinks its shrinking how.
what?
Yes, its getting smaller!
wow very long quote chain also bump
horsie is contributing to your pain of holding the down button too long
Okay, so this puzzle was not created, but it happened in a real game.
I found it in this forum
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/chess960-strategy---tips-hints
The reason why I chose this title was because even though chess960 has the same rules as normal chess, the position would probably never happen in standard because it was quite a strange starting position