I'm not much of chess person, but I don't get it. Even if the black knight plays for white, it's still not checkmate. What prevents the black king from "eating" that black knight?
The black knight plays for black.
In the solution presented at the end of the article, whose turn to move is it? Who can't make any further moves coz they've been check-mated? That's what I don't get. If it's white, white can still move their king back towards their home row and there's more than one move left in the game. If it's black, black can move the black knight in between the two kings and we'd still have more than one move left.
"strictly" changes the meaning of the sentence. it suggests that there are "strict" and "not so strict" interpretations of the chess rules, and that if you're not so strict, the move is OK. but promoting to the other color is not allowed, even under "not so strict" interpretations of the rules of chess. an example of things that may be permitted in "not so strict" chess: taking back your move, not moving a piece even…
I mean really, the rules are the rules, and there is no ambiguity. So a "strict reading of the rules" is the same thing as a "reading of the rules." Because, as you say, there is no such thing as a reading of the rules that violates the rules and is thus merely "less strict." For example, under the rules, not moving a piece you touched and promoting to the other color are the same: illegal. The examples you are givin…
You seem to imply that all rules are equally as important as one another, while I would say they are not. For example, in a casual game of chess, most would be okay with some of the aforementioned deviations, like taking back a move. I do not think most would accept it if you started moving your pawns around like queens.
"no longer strictly within the bounds of the rules of the game" I take exception to _strictly_... it's just flat out illegal now, no "strictly" about it. I would have been less ticked off if the article had simply written "no longer within the bounds of the rules of the game." It is fascinating that the move was formerly legal though.
the amount of times i get called bullshit for doing an en passant or uttering the word zugzwang...
In the solution presented at the end of the article, whose turn to move is it? Who can't make any further moves coz they've been check-mated? That's what I don't get. If it's white, white can still move their king back towards their home row and there's more than one move left in the game. If it's black, black can move the black knight in between the two kings and we'd still have more than one move left.
Black is in check from the white rook. Moving the black night doesn't escape the check, so isn't a legal move.
SPOILER: Move WhiteRook (G6>C6) thereby giving a check to black King with Knight at (H7). It also blocks WhiteKnight (A8)'s view of the Black King thereby freeing the BlackRook(B7>H7) to kill the WhiteKnight at H7
"no longer strictly within the bounds of the rules of the game" I take exception to _strictly_... it's just flat out illegal now, no "strictly" about it. I would have been less ticked off if the article had simply written "no longer within the bounds of the rules of the game." It is fascinating that the move was formerly legal though.
the amount of times i get called bullshit for doing an en passant or uttering the word zugzwang...
Serious question: Does en passant happen often? I've never seen it happen in the wild (i.e. in games I play), but I just play casually with people.
Also very challenging for chess players is retrograde analysis, where you have to find the only possible legal moves to reach the given position. See the cover of this book by Smullyan http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81y-bMMYCoL.jpg
Thanks for that link, it was fun and took me quite awhile to figure out!
Vs gur obneq vf hcfvqr-qbja, juvgr cebzbgrq gb n ovfubc naq gura oynpx zbirq bhg bs purpx. Bgurejvfr V pna'g guvax bs nalguvat. Vf gung jung lbh pnzr hc jvgu?
Yeah, but putting "strictly" there does not change the meaning of the sentence, it's just a superfluous word.
"strictly" changes the meaning of the sentence. it suggests that there are "strict" and "not so strict" interpretations of the chess rules, and that if you're not so strict, the move is OK. but promoting to the other color is not allowed, even under "not so strict" interpretations of the rules of chess. an example of things that may be permitted in "not so strict" chess: taking back your move, not moving a piece even…
If my opponent would use that move, I would probably consider it as a severe case of rule of cool. ( But this may be the reason, that I prefer RPGs to chess. )
In the solution presented at the end of the article, whose turn to move is it? Who can't make any further moves coz they've been check-mated? That's what I don't get. If it's white, white can still move their king back towards their home row and there's more than one move left in the game. If it's black, black can move the black knight in between the two kings and we'd still have more than one move left.
White advanced the pawn and promoted it. It is black's turn. Moving the knight between the kings is illegal because the black king is in check by the white rook.