Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.
It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?
Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.
Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.
Ooh, more difficult than I originally thought. Why isn't c6-c5+ viable if white's last move was taking the black rook on c3, placed there much earlier in the game?
Try to find it. Here's the answer, highlight to read
1.exf6 e.p.#
But how do you know black's last move was ...f7-f5?
Dude, you have to figure that out. Otherwise how can you do the mate?
PS. Why did you show my solution?!!
I contend that your problem has no solution. That is why I did not bother to hide it.
Say you walked into a room and two players were playing this position. They've told you it's white to move. Isn't it far more likely that Black's last move was something OTHER than ...f7-f5?
There is no other solution, so you must conclude that enpassant is legal!
But it makes so much more sense to conclude the composer doesn't know what he's doing.
I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.
I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.
You have not solved it. You must prove beyond any doubt that Black's last move was ...c7-c5, not just assume it.
I solved Ramillion's one. Simillar to mine.
You have not solved it. You must prove beyond any doubt that Black's last move was ...c7-c5, not just assume it.
NO you don't- if there's no other solution that has to be the one!
Unless you can find another solution of course!
I could say that the position is already mate since white appears to be in checkmate. There. Mated.
In fact, I'm not asking you to find a move that allows white to deliver mate in 1. I'm asking you if white is in checkmate already or not.
@SomethingStranger: If that was white's last move before ...c6-c5, the bishop on b8 must be promoted. Is there any reason that is possible, or impossible?
Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.
It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?
Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.
White does, 1.c6#.
Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.
It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?
Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.
White does, 1.c6#.
Oh wait!!! Whoops, sorry.
Concluding en passant is legal arbitrarily is weak.
It's much better where you find a position where you can prove that the only legal last move must have been the double step, and not say ...c6-c5+. Who wins here?
Although I don't expect anyone to understand what I'm saying.
White does, 1.c6#.
Oh wait!!! Whoops, sorry.
Or maybe it is legal. lol
Maybe retros are too hard. I'll make a regular #1. Yep.
Protip: There is only one move that mates in one.
"In a Mate in 2, both black and white play moves. So why can't they both play a move in a mate in 1?"
I get BigDogg's problem now--the white pawns are on a2 and b2, not a7 and b7. Therefore, the black king is on white's side of the board. It is therefore black to move. He is counting both black and white's turn as one whole move. Therefore, the correct answer is 1. ... Kxa2 2. Ra3# - 1 whole move.
The position is not legal.
How is it not legal?
@Teddyhead: My position is legal. What makes you think it is illegal?
newengland7 got BigDogg's problem right.
FutureRain's problem is illegal because the wBf8 must be promoted (the c1-bishop could never have escaped) but white still has all 8 pawns.
@Teddyhead: My position is legal. What makes you think it is illegal?
newengland7 got BigDogg's problem right.
FutureRain's problem is illegal because the wBf8 must be promoted (the c1-bishop could never have escaped) but white still has all 8 pawns.
In a chess puzzle, it doesnt matter if its illegal, puzzles are for practicing your tactics, cheking how good you are at tactics and not how good you are at finding illegal positions.
Sometimes ches teachers, to teach, do watever they want, they make puzzles without king for beginers, make puzzles that the pawns can move like queens...
Unless you can find another solution for a mate in 1!