Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

saremba.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#91

Post by eth0up »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #23
catillac wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding slightly to say, “…not a lawful defense to murder in the jurisdictions of which I am aware.” :)

Never accept an invitation to play chess in the Idaho section of Yellowstone.

I surmise also to exercise caution when considering en passant in some but not all american correctional facilities. And certainly don't pronounce it with a heavy french accent if you must, as it might arouse suspicion, even if your immediate opponent seems reasonable. If you do attempt this and violence seems imminent, try saying you were just kidding and gently restore the pieces to their original position.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#92

Post by manquer »

Ekaros wrote: post #54
Someone wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't win king vs king+pawn ever Pawns can get promoted, so there are are many king vs king + pawn positions that are a win for the player having the pawn.

Point was that you having only king can't win against person with king+pawn ever. Even if such player was dead and thus played to lose.

You cannot win doesn't mean you loose .

You can always attempt to get stalemated which is a draw, or get a draw my threefold repetion , or in theory the 50 move draw rule as well( if say 47/48 of those already had happened etc).

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#93

Post by manquer »

Tommah wrote: post #66

Years ago, I read a tongue-in-cheek list of tips on how to win at chess. One of them said, "Never resign. There's always a chance that your opponent will drop dead before he can checkmate you."

In somewhat serious play and definitely professional play it would be considered bad manners to not resign a obviously lost position, and also kind of insulting to the opponent in not accepting he can win such a obvious position and making them play it over the board.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#94

Post by Miiko »

tzs wrote: post #87
catillac wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For practical purposes this is not correct though. It would be trivial for the person whose turn it is to make _any_ legal move to shift the current turn over to their now-deceased opponent and as such win the game.

Making a move does not necessarily shift the turn to your opponent. You can have a position where all of your possible legal moves stalemate your opponent, in which case your move immediately ends that game and is the last move of the game. Tangentially, this reminds me of an amusing chess conundrum. Is it possible for a position to occur in a legal game of chess where all pieces and pawns are on the board, all of th…

> Is it possible for a position to occur in a legal game of chess where all pieces and pawns are on the board, all of them are on their original squares, and white does not have the move?

No, and that's quite easy to prove: With all pawns on their original position, the only valid moves are by knights and rooks, and for each such move the moving piece changes the color of space it occupies (for rooks that's because they have only 1 empty place to move).

That is, in order to return to the initial position, each side must make an even number of moves (knights exchanged or not), so next move will be always white's.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#95

Post by manquer »

This makes me think can I continue to play after I die? Or Do I automatically forfeit the game because I died ?

I mea I could setup my next moves and kind of play the game from the grave especially in some positions of strength it doesn't even matter what the opponent plays ?

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#96

Post by jyriand »

kzrdude wrote: post #76
wellthisisgreat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it does mean that the chess assumes that the king is never “killed”? It always stood out to me as, what I assumed to be medieval code of conduct that required not killing kings (killing queens is ok)

That it is called a queen is also cultural, in Russia, Arabic speaking countries etc it is not a queen but a called a vizier or similar (a high ranking official). Looks like the Europeans changed to queens in their interpretation of chess.

It's also called a "flag" in some places.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#97

Post by Ekaros »

manquer wrote: post #92
Ekaros wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point was that you having only king can't win against person with king+pawn ever. Even if such player was dead and thus played to lose.

You cannot win doesn't mean you loose . You can always attempt to get stalemated which is a draw, or get a draw my threefold repetion , or in theory the 50 move draw rule as well( if say 47/48 of those already had happened etc).

I this case we were talking about situation where other player is literally dead. So I imagine draw would be granted, on part of other party not making any moves...

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#98

Post by paxys »

kzrdude wrote: post #76
wellthisisgreat wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it does mean that the chess assumes that the king is never “killed”? It always stood out to me as, what I assumed to be medieval code of conduct that required not killing kings (killing queens is ok)

That it is called a queen is also cultural, in Russia, Arabic speaking countries etc it is not a queen but a called a vizier or similar (a high ranking official). Looks like the Europeans changed to queens in their interpretation of chess.

From a historical lens "queen" is very odd nomenclature. The queen was certainly not the most powerful unit on a battlefield. I doubt more than a handful of prominent queens have ever been on the battlefield at all.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#99

Post by paxys »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #70
vardump wrote: post #59

Please never show these rules to a general AI and ask it to win a chess match...

As an aside, would it be ethical to restrict an AGI to a single purpose? It sort of reminds me of Rick’s butter robot from Rick and Morty

Ironic because that's what most humans are reduced to today.

Re: “Death” one of 5 ways to lose at Chess, according to PGN standard

#100

Post by AdhemarVandamme »

paxys wrote: post #98
kzrdude wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That it is called a queen is also cultural, in Russia, Arabic speaking countries etc it is not a queen but a called a vizier or similar (a high ranking official). Looks like the Europeans changed to queens in their interpretation of chess.

From a historical lens "queen" is very odd nomenclature. The queen was certainly not the most powerful unit on a battlefield. I doubt more than a handful of prominent queens have ever been on the battlefield at all.

The queen was also historically not such a very powerful chess piece. The rule that the queen roams freely in all directions on the board was established, in her honour, when Queen Isabella I of Castile reigned.
Post reply on HN