Posers and Puzzles
06 Dec 05
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheMaster37I have no problem at all with variations of chess. But then the rules must be stated, and be consistent.
From the moment you read the title of this thread you should have known this was not a normal chess game.
Apparently this puzzle has only a small resemblance with the normal chess game.
The object of this puzzle was to recontruct the checkmate. Obviously the king couldn't have moved from that position, otherwise it wasn't a checkmate. The move wh ...[text shortened]... zzle?
Other puzzles have many idiotic rules, I find the rules in this puzzle not too strange.
Apart from that, the puzzle would still be a lousy one, since there are many solutions. For instance, from what do you infer that the king was taken on e1 and not somewhere else? Or that white's last move was with the rook and not with another piece (a knight, or why not the king, if being in check is possible?).
Do not confuse 'open mind' with 'stupid'
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Where could the king have been if he wasn't on e1?
I have no problem at all with variations of chess. But then the rules must be stated, and be consistent.
Apart from that, the puzzle would still be a lousy one, since there are many solutions. For instance, from what do you infer that the king was taken on e1 and not somewhere else? Or that white's last move was with the rook and not with another piece ...[text shortened]... y not the king, if being in check is possible?).
Do not confuse 'open mind' with 'stupid'
Open mind is fine by me. If there are multiple solutions that should be pointed out.
Yes, the rules should have been stated, but from context they were quite clear. Dogg-dude simply wanted something to whine about though - wich is what caused me to reply.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheMaster37The white king could also have been on
Where could the king have been if he wasn't on e1?
Open mind is fine by me. If there are multiple solutions that should be pointed out.
Yes, the rules should have been stated, but from context they were quite clear. Dogg-dude simply wanted something to whine about though - wich is what caused me to reply.
- e4 and was captured by the queen
- f8 and was captured by the bishop
- g8 and was captured by the knight
- a8 and was captured by the rook
- and why not e8 and was captured by the king, since being in check is not an issue?
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheMaster37Finally, our savior is here! Too long has whining plagued our forums. I'm glad you're here to save us all from ourselves.
Yes, the rules should have been stated, but from context they were quite clear. Dogg-dude simply wanted something to whine about though - wich is what caused me to reply.
(You're gonna need a stiff drink before starting on the Spirituality forum...)
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Good point; even if we assume the game was legal until checkmate, we still have cooks like:
The white king could also have been on
- e4 and was captured by the queen
- f8 and was captured by the bishop
- g8 and was captured by the knight
- a8 and was captured by the rook
- and why not e8 and was captured by the king, since being in check is not an issue?
White was mated, then 'played' 1.Kxe4 Qxe4.
13 Dec 05
There's a lot of whining going on here, clearly from people who have never played in a live blitz tournament (as opposed to online), where the announcement of check is not necessary and capturing the king is perfectly legal. Unless the rules have changed since I played blitz tournaments, which was between 10 and 15 years ago, admittedly. As such, I have no problem with this puzzle, though certainly there are a great many squares where the king may have lost his head, which tends to reduce its usefulness. I guess the point of this post is to pose the question, why are people so inhibited by their paradigms that they cannot even begin to consider something as simple as a chess puzzle without their perceptions of reality inhibiting natural thought? "Always with you it cannot be done."
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by thundyrCapturing the king is never legal even in blitz. The way it actually works is that a player has lost the game by making an illegal move (leaving his king in check).
There's a lot of whining going on here, clearly from people who have never played in a live blitz tournament (as opposed to online), where the announcement of check is not necessary and capturing the king is perfectly legal. Unless the rules have changed since I played blitz tournaments, which was between 10 and 15 years ago, admittedly. As such, I have n ...[text shortened]... their perceptions of reality inhibiting natural thought? "Always with you it cannot be done."