KieferSmith wrote:
#27
Illegal because Black has made three captures but White is only missing two units.
Challenge: Why is this position illegal?
Sort:
Your all idiots there are too many promoted peices to pawns if you add the extra peices and pawns it equals more than eight.
The OTB players often talks in code or jargons that a position played sloppy is illegal or just for the online corner cup
Sep 27, 2023
0
#25
EanH1 wrote:
Your all idiots there are too many promoted peices to pawns if you add the extra peices and pawns it equals more than eight.
The first position posted here had already been solved, but then they closed their account and deleted their comments
NVM, I forgot about the 2nd knight of f2, it's illegal.
EanH1 wrote:
Your all idiots there are too many promoted peices to pawns if you add the extra peices and pawns it equals more than eight.
That could be, but I do know how to write words like "you're" and "pieces".
Sep 29, 2023
0
#30
White's light squared bishop could never get behind black's pawns in #38 KieferSmith
Easy, all the black pawns on light color promotion files couldn't have moved and therefore would block any promotion. Even with the f pawn missing, is a dark promotion color, so regardless of the number of captures, the pawn would be blocked an a,c,e,or g pawn. No other pieces captured to account for a capture on the 8th rank. I like how easy this one is yet you still have to use 3 steps of reasoning to figure it out.
KieferSmith wrote:
#40
Each of White's missing pawns was blocked by an unmoved black pawn and would need two captures to promote to a light-squared bishop, but Black still has 16 units on the board.
(Same illegality proof as #41)
KieferSmith wrote:
Assuming this is a standard chess game and not a variant, why is this position illegal?
Because there are 5 pawns, 2 queens, 3 knights, and 3 bishops, meaning that there would have had to been at least 9 pawns at one point.
Fury325Carowinds wrote:
KieferSmith wrote:
Assuming this is a standard chess game and not a variant, why is this position illegal?
Because there are 5 pawns, 2 queens, 3 knights, and 3 bishops, meaning that there would have had to been at least 9 pawns at one point.
Bro I LOVE FURY325! I took a trip to Charlotte last year just to ride it! Got the flashpass and rode it about 100 times over 2 days. Front seat is the best, best rolleecoaster!
Oct 27, 2023
0
#38
fjdkslagh wrote:
#2 doesn't seem illegal at all
in #3 there (probably) was no way for the pawn on d6 to get there
For #2, you need to remember white's light-squared bishop started on f1.
For #3, white's last move was a bishop move since the black king is in check.
fjdkslagh wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
From what I understand, that's an impossible position and impossible positions don't count as illegal.
However, in this case the B could have taken a piece.
impossible and illegal mean the same thing you frozen toilet seat.
Even math protects us. A legal position in chess is a possible world in math. An illegal position is an impossible world. However, a pink elephant is neither legal nor illegal as it is outside the chess language space, it is not a chess position at all. Interestingly the BBC broadcasts a TV show based on the same concepts and named: "IMPOSSIBLE".
It´s simply not possible for White to promote enough pawns to make pieces for the Black pawns to take. Maybe I´ve overlooked something here?: (note that the LSB must have been taken, since the e and g pawns have not moved)
Yes, that's what makes the position illegal. It turns out that removing any single unit from the board other than a king will make the position legal.
Here's a little briefer way to explain it. Black needs to make eight captures on light squares, including the captures on b7 and f1. White is missing eight units, but one of them is a dark-squared bishop.
Only 6 captures by black pawns are needed to reach that position though.