10 Apr 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWhy isn't it legal? If it was at e7 and the pawn at f6 COULD have taken it doesn't mean its not a legal position if white didn't take it so that position could have been there for a while and now black pushes.
It looks good, except for the minor problem that en passant is not legal.
Don't see how en passant is not legal in this situation. In order for this problem to have a two move solution, it seems to me taking en passant is the only solution.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is not legal because the pawn on e5 is really the f-pawn. See my analysis on page 1 of the thread for further detail.
Why isn't it legal? If it was at e7 and the pawn at f6 COULD have taken it doesn't mean its not a legal position if white didn't take it so that position could have been there for a while and now black pushes.
Don't see how en passant is not legal in this situation. In order for this problem to have a two move solution, it seems to me taking en passant is the only solution.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThat is correct. The whole point of the puzzle is to determine black's last move, proving that castling is notpossible anymore. That the pawn on e5 must have come from f7 originally not only eliminates e7-e5 and the e.p. solution, but also the castling rights, because black's last move must have been a king or rook move.
It is not legal because the pawn on e5 is really the f-pawn. See my analysis on page 1 of the thread for further detail.