No moves at all, not even to put yourself in check
$begingroup$
Here, white is stalemated. The king is not in check, but white has no legal moves. Not because any move white makes would put the king in check -- which is how stalemates normally happen -- but because no white piece can move at all, even if we temporarily ignore the no-self-check rule.
(Black is not stalemated: king takes bishop.)
Now, this example is a bit wasteful, 62 white pieces plus the two kings. Also, it can't be reached from the starting position.
Come up with an example, using the fewest pieces (total both sides). Can it actually be reached from the starting position?
Small hint:
there is essentially only one answer. [EDIT: OP screwed up]
chess construction
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here, white is stalemated. The king is not in check, but white has no legal moves. Not because any move white makes would put the king in check -- which is how stalemates normally happen -- but because no white piece can move at all, even if we temporarily ignore the no-self-check rule.
(Black is not stalemated: king takes bishop.)
Now, this example is a bit wasteful, 62 white pieces plus the two kings. Also, it can't be reached from the starting position.
Come up with an example, using the fewest pieces (total both sides). Can it actually be reached from the starting position?
Small hint:
there is essentially only one answer. [EDIT: OP screwed up]
chess construction
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
$endgroup$
9
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
1
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here, white is stalemated. The king is not in check, but white has no legal moves. Not because any move white makes would put the king in check -- which is how stalemates normally happen -- but because no white piece can move at all, even if we temporarily ignore the no-self-check rule.
(Black is not stalemated: king takes bishop.)
Now, this example is a bit wasteful, 62 white pieces plus the two kings. Also, it can't be reached from the starting position.
Come up with an example, using the fewest pieces (total both sides). Can it actually be reached from the starting position?
Small hint:
there is essentially only one answer. [EDIT: OP screwed up]
chess construction
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
$endgroup$
Here, white is stalemated. The king is not in check, but white has no legal moves. Not because any move white makes would put the king in check -- which is how stalemates normally happen -- but because no white piece can move at all, even if we temporarily ignore the no-self-check rule.
(Black is not stalemated: king takes bishop.)
Now, this example is a bit wasteful, 62 white pieces plus the two kings. Also, it can't be reached from the starting position.
Come up with an example, using the fewest pieces (total both sides). Can it actually be reached from the starting position?
Small hint:
there is essentially only one answer. [EDIT: OP screwed up]
chess construction
chess construction
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
edited Oct 20 '18 at 15:39
deep thought
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
asked Oct 19 '18 at 19:39
deep thoughtdeep thought
3,6961941
3,6961941
9
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
1
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
9
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
1
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57
9
9
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
1
1
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here are my first idea (both sides are essentially the same answer, so the hint fits too):
Both positions seem to be independently reachable by a legal game. It might be possible to find a legal game leading to the whole position too, but that would take a bit of time.
Before that, I'm going to double check for any simpler solutions. :-)
Since OP commented that only one side needs to be stalemated in this rigorous fashion, this should do the trick:
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The general idea is
To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.
Here's a solution with 14 pieces total.
Promote three pawns to two rooks and a bishop.
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about
I think that's an alternative 6+1-piece solution.
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, the minimumal amount of pieces to stalemate one side is a simple 2+1. Take a look. This is easily legal.
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f74138%2fno-moves-at-all-not-even-to-put-yourself-in-check%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here are my first idea (both sides are essentially the same answer, so the hint fits too):
Both positions seem to be independently reachable by a legal game. It might be possible to find a legal game leading to the whole position too, but that would take a bit of time.
Before that, I'm going to double check for any simpler solutions. :-)
Since OP commented that only one side needs to be stalemated in this rigorous fashion, this should do the trick:
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Here are my first idea (both sides are essentially the same answer, so the hint fits too):
Both positions seem to be independently reachable by a legal game. It might be possible to find a legal game leading to the whole position too, but that would take a bit of time.
Before that, I'm going to double check for any simpler solutions. :-)
Since OP commented that only one side needs to be stalemated in this rigorous fashion, this should do the trick:
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Here are my first idea (both sides are essentially the same answer, so the hint fits too):
Both positions seem to be independently reachable by a legal game. It might be possible to find a legal game leading to the whole position too, but that would take a bit of time.
Before that, I'm going to double check for any simpler solutions. :-)
Since OP commented that only one side needs to be stalemated in this rigorous fashion, this should do the trick:
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
$endgroup$
Here are my first idea (both sides are essentially the same answer, so the hint fits too):
Both positions seem to be independently reachable by a legal game. It might be possible to find a legal game leading to the whole position too, but that would take a bit of time.
Before that, I'm going to double check for any simpler solutions. :-)
Since OP commented that only one side needs to be stalemated in this rigorous fashion, this should do the trick:
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
edited Oct 19 '18 at 20:16
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:04
BassBass
31.7k475195
31.7k475195
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
|
show 4 more comments
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
2
2
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
White needs to have promoted 4 pawns, no? There are only 3 white pawns missing.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
$begingroup$
Note only one side needs to be stalemated
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:05
1
1
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
oops, there are too many same coloured bishops. Imagine the G and H files swapped for a more reachable position please :-)
$endgroup$
– Bass
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
$begingroup$
+1 but still not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:11
1
1
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
$begingroup$
I think there's another 6+1 solution, given in my answer.
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 20 '18 at 3:22
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
The general idea is
To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.
Here's a solution with 14 pieces total.
Promote three pawns to two rooks and a bishop.
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The general idea is
To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.
Here's a solution with 14 pieces total.
Promote three pawns to two rooks and a bishop.
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The general idea is
To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.
Here's a solution with 14 pieces total.
Promote three pawns to two rooks and a bishop.
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
$endgroup$
The general idea is
To fill the 8th rank with major pieces which block pawns from advancing, and fill the 7th rank with pawns which block the pieces from moving. We can't have knights on the 8th, though, because they would still have 6th rank squares available.
Here's a solution with 14 pieces total.
Promote three pawns to two rooks and a bishop.
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
edited Oct 19 '18 at 20:17
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
answered Oct 19 '18 at 20:01
jafejafe
27k479266
27k479266
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
Correct +1, but not minimal!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
@deepthought got it down to 13 :)
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:12
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
$begingroup$
great! but keep going :-D
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 20:14
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about
I think that's an alternative 6+1-piece solution.
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about
I think that's an alternative 6+1-piece solution.
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about
I think that's an alternative 6+1-piece solution.
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
$endgroup$
How about
I think that's an alternative 6+1-piece solution.
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
edited Oct 20 '18 at 9:01
Bass
31.7k475195
31.7k475195
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
answered Oct 20 '18 at 3:21
supercatsupercat
1,717417
1,717417
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
Before posting the puzzle I proved my solution was unique [OP vanishes in a puff of logic]
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:33
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
$begingroup$
I'll award a bonus, but it looks like there's a delay enforced.
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 20 '18 at 15:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, the minimumal amount of pieces to stalemate one side is a simple 2+1. Take a look. This is easily legal.
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, the minimumal amount of pieces to stalemate one side is a simple 2+1. Take a look. This is easily legal.
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Actually, the minimumal amount of pieces to stalemate one side is a simple 2+1. Take a look. This is easily legal.
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
$endgroup$
Actually, the minimumal amount of pieces to stalemate one side is a simple 2+1. Take a look. This is easily legal.
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
answered 26 mins ago
Rewan DemontayRewan Demontay
1,060119
1,060119
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
There’s a condition in the problem that none of white’s pieces should be able to move, so this solution is invalid unfortunately
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
22 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Um, none of white’s pieces can move. Am I missing something here?
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Sorry, forgot the phrase “not even into check,” white’s king can still move into check here
$endgroup$
– PiIsNot3
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
$begingroup$
Oh. I’ll see what I can do then.
$endgroup$
– Rewan Demontay
10 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f74138%2fno-moves-at-all-not-even-to-put-yourself-in-check%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
$begingroup$
If I'm black in the above example, I think I'm happy with the draw.
$endgroup$
– jafe
Oct 19 '18 at 20:24
$begingroup$
Now for another challenge: produce a legal position where both sides are likewise stalemated [so that even being forced to move into check would be a loss, and a player could pass if no pieces could move at all, the game would be drawn].
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 21:18
$begingroup$
@supercat - if you want to post part 2, go for it!
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 21:23
1
$begingroup$
@deepthought: I actually did, quite some time ago, but on a different SE board: chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4836/…
$endgroup$
– supercat
Oct 19 '18 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@supercat - ah nice, thanks for the link
$endgroup$
– deep thought
Oct 19 '18 at 22:57