13 May 08
Originally posted by heinzkatI would just say that in b), the last moves had to be -1.dxe6 ep e7-e5 -2.d4-d5+, and in a), -1...e7-e5 is illegal check to wK. The minus sign in front of the move number denotes retraction.
Yes... therefore the previous moves cannot have been d4-d5+, e7-e5, d5xe6 e.p.+, since White cannot have played d4-d5 while his own King was in check. Therefore, the first position is illegal.
With the wK->d7 the previous moves can/must have been (in order to reach the position) d4-d5+, e7-e5. d4xe6 e.p.+.
I welcome better thought out explanations.
(on a sidenote, 'can have been', is there a better construction to say this?)
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by David113How many halfmoves would you have to 'get' for the two e.p. captures? And for three? I suppose MORE THAN six [edit two seconds later; oh probably six halfmoves is just enough]. Seems a tough exercise?
Now, two challenges:
Construct a legal position in which it is possible to prove that there were TWO e. p. captures.
Do the same for THREE e. p. captures.
14 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks for the flaw finding - I had thought of pieces that 'added' (were captured by Black), but could not find this one. Now what can be done to uncook it? Probably this whole set-up doesn't work?
Looks cooked. -1.e5xf6ep f7-f5 -2.e4-e5 Kf6xNg6 -3.Ne5-g6+.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitOriginally posted by SwissGambit
N. Høeg
FIDE Album 1914-44
[fen]bN6/pPkR3p/PpPpPP2/8/2KP4/B6B/1q1P2PQ/br1R2Nr[/fen]
What were the last 13 single moves played?
This was the task David113 asked for a while back - 3 en passant captures in a retro.
I guess we can call this SOLV'D, David?