x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Strange/interesting puzzles

  • #1
    This forum is for interesting puzzles. I hope you enjoy!

     

  • #2
    Who is better here?

     

  • #3
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #4

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    The second position is illegal!

  • #5
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #6

     

  • #7

     

  • #8

    Thanks happy.png

  • #9
    Bongoman2406 wrote:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    The second position is illegal!

    Really? I suppose it could be, come to think of ir. In fact it looks more so the longer I think about it. What say you, composer?

  • #10
    Bongoman2406 wrote:
     

     

    Good one.

  • #11
    camter wrote:
    Bongoman2406 wrote:

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

    The second position is illegal!

    Really? I suppose it could be, come to think of ir. In fact it looks more so the longer I think about it. What say you, composer?

     

    It might not be, 

     

    Heh "obviously White is better". 

     

    But since this is "strange puzzles" (which are funny but i get tired of them) there's a whole bunch of these. It's the lack of Bishops freaking us out. I'm dead tired so I can't see the precise moves to do it, but it involves knights wandering in and eating bishops then wandering back out. 

     

     

  • #12
    Black has lost 2 pieces - the d-pawn and the f8 bishop.

    As the f8 bishop is a black-squared bishop (and must have been taken on f8 in any case), the black piece that was taken by the white pawn on b3 must have been the d-pawn or a piece it was promoted to.

    Could this have happened?

    White has lost 2 pieces - the c1 bishop and the f1 bishop.

    The f1 bishop must've been taken on f1, so the Black d-pawn could only have taken 1 piece at most.

    This means that the Black d-pawn could only have got to b3 if it was promoted.

    This is not possible with only 1 capture due to the white pawns on c2 and e2 - 2 captures would have been needed to get past White's d-pawn and to a promotion square.

    Therefore the position is illegal.

    Nice composition!

  • #13

     

  • #14

    lol nice

  • #15

    even if there's a mate in one!

  • #16

     

  • #17
    texaspete wrote:
    Black has lost 2 pieces - the d-pawn and the f8 bishop.

    As the f8 bishop is a black-squared bishop (and must have been taken on f8 in any case), the black piece that was taken by the white pawn on b3 must have been the d-pawn or a piece it was promoted to.

    Could this have happened?

    White has lost 2 pieces - the c1 bishop and the f1 bishop.

    The f1 bishop must've been taken on f1, so the Black d-pawn could only have taken 1 piece at most.

    This means that the Black d-pawn could only have got to b3 if it was promoted.

    This is not possible with only 1 capture due to the white pawns on c2 and e2 - 2 captures would have been needed to get past White's d-pawn and to a promotion square.

    Therefore the position is illegal.

    Nice composition!

    All correct. Nice reasoning! (That's my reasoning too)

  • #18
    Bongoman2406 wrote:
    This forum is for interesting puzzles. I hope you enjoy!

     

    1st time-failed  2nd time- solved    as these are very interesting

  • #19

     

  • #20

    Yes, that is a legal position

Online Now