Mate in 1 - Very Hard

I've seen it before, but it's a COOK! Alternate solution 1.bxa8/WT-King   putting the BL King in check by the Rook, with no escape since A KING CANNOT BE TAKEN. So the WT King cannot be. And while the rules say a King cannot Move into check or an attacked square, they do not say that it cannot Promote onto an attacked SQ!   Such as did the newest WT King. Which was a pawn when it Moved there . . .

* * * * *

Thought for the day, you are Tournament Director under Tartakower Rules, and WT has just played b8/black-rook, CHECK and CHECK  ... what is your ruling?!

 That's ridiculous. The puzzle is no mate-in-one.

They do not need to make up a rule for something like that. The game has rules that players need to follow, but there are plenty of rules that have never been written down, and never will. The fact that pieces cannot change color is one of those rules. When a pawn reaches the 8th, it is promoted, not swapped for any other piece (where a rule would have to be stated as to which color). Since it is promoted, this obviously has to happen within the ranks of his own army. Saying that it is possible to promote to the opposite color is as ridiculous as saying that, at the end of any turn, you can create a 'traitor' and swap one of your pieces for a similar one of the opposite color. In a case of zugzwang, maybe you could swap your white bishop for a black one on f3 and suddenly have an advantage. Might as well be able to promote it at the same time, since spies are usually given special treatment. While your at it, just place a Queen on the board at the end of your turn to improve your position. There is no rule that forbids this.

If a rule exists, then it can be challenged: the wording critiqued, etc. If a rule does not exist, then it cannot be challenged!

If I was playing the creator of this puzzle (I truly doubt Tartakower was this illogical),

I would just plop down a wolverine on the board, proclaiming him the Great-Gluttonous-Fat-Furry-Beast-King which could eat pieces at whim.

If he protested, I would simply exclaim "The rules don't say that I can't do that!"

 Haha, absolutely.

Another obvious problem with the puzzle. 

For starters, the "promotion" isn't taken literally. The pawn doesn't literally become a queen; it is replaced with one. 

There are absolutely NO rules that are not written down. The rules of Chess are best viewed as a formal system, with rules like "Kings can't castle through checks" the axioms (a bad example, since I'm sure the real rule is much wordier), as well as the original gamestate. All subsequent gamestates must result from the axioms of the game. The reason he could promote into black was that one of the axioms implicitly allowed for it. The rule probably said something to the effect of "when a pawn reaches the last rank, you must replace it with another piece of your choice." This doesn't specify color, and explicitly states that you get to choose the piece, so black pieces are included. Promoting to a black knight is within the formal system under these rules. 

The reason you can't put do the put a giant wolverine on the table is because there is no gamestate that follows from the axioms that results in that.

Okay, chess players are too smart... whatever you just said... umm yeah great thanks :P

 Anyways, the more I look into it the more convinced I am Tarkatower made that puzzle... he was always a bit quirky.

 The move would be illegal, because it would put the white king in check. You can't make a move that results in your king being put in check. It would be analogous to white moving a pinned knight to put the black king in check.

I was joking of course.ha!

 The promotion is taken literally. That is why it is called promotion.

This came up when another one of these stupid supposed 'loophole' puzzles was created. The solution to this other puzzle included the white King castling with a pawn that had just promoted to a rook on e8. Despite FIDE adding the rule that castling had to happen on the same rank to avoid confusion, the official ruling was that this would not have been allowed in a game. The rook was not simply a new piece, but a pawn that had been promoted. Therefore, castling in this manner is not allowed, as the rook had moved previously as a pawn.

 I stated in my original post (as I've left in tact above) that if a pawn was simply swapped for another piece, then a rule would be called for to command that it remain the same color. However, pawn promotion has always been referred to as pawn promotion. This being the case, no new rule is called for.

 I can't believe you took the Beast King seriously, but since you did, I guess I will try to meet you on your point. Here, I would like to provide the following quote:

"The reason he could promote into black was that one of the axioms implicitly allowed for it."

Wasn't the basis of your argument that any subsequent game-state must follow from the previous game-state and any of a number of explicit axioms? According to your logic, the pawn would not be able to switch colors because the pawn was white in the previous game-state and no explicit axiom defined the right to switch colors.

I guess it all goes back to what the original wording was, because if it said something like "...you may swap your pawn for any other piece," then you would have a good point. However, I am thoroughly convinced that even the first rules called for "promotion." If you agree with me on this point, then you should agree that the puzzle was faulty.

 Analogous, but not tantamount.

The reason that the two situations differ is the fact that the pawn can move without placing the King in check. The knight is doomed to an immobile fate from the beginning of the turn and so moving him would simply be an illegal move. However, the white pawn can move without putting the white King in check. So, when he promotes to a black rook and puts the white King in check, it has suddenly created a paradox. Where a move in chess is always thought to be a complete entity, this one is divided in two. Half of the move is legal and half of the move is not.

 I like hearing myself type

Another way to checkmate in one is to castle.

This would have been a legal move in previous times before the rule was changed. Although the current rules of chess require a pawn that reaches the eighth rank to be promoted to a different piece, that was not always the case. Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, in his 1889 work The Modern Chess Instructor endorsed the then-existent "Code of Laws of the British Chess Association." Law XIII thereof provided, "When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has previously been lost or not, whose names and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a pawn. As you can see, based on this rule it is acceptable to promote to a knight or keep it as a pawn.

RyanMK wrote:

This would have been a legal move in previous times before the rule was changed. Although the current rules of chess require a pawn that reaches the eighth rank to be promoted to a different piece, that was not always the case. Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, in his 1889 work The Modern Chess Instructor endorsed the then-existent "Code of Laws of the British Chess Association." Law XIII thereof provided, "When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has previously been lost or not, whose names and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a pawn. As you can see, based on this rule it is acceptable to promote to a knight or keep it as a pawn.

Interesting. Of course, Tartakower was 2 in 1889. I wonder when the rule was changed. It was obviously not left like this for long. At this point, it is still legal to leave the pawn as a pawn. Where did you find this information?

I found it at wikipedia because it's convenient, but if you want a more credible site I'm sure you could find one. Does googling "Code of Laws of the British Chess Association" result in anything?