| Author | Message | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1114 Registered: 5-2009 |
Nobody really ever did it. Very probably, nobody would really ever have done it. Quite probably, it wasn't allowed anyway. But it seems the mere idea someone might get away with it was frightening enough for them to explicitly forbid it. | ||
| Potato (Potato)
New member Username: Potato Post Number: 768 Registered: 7-2010 |
Something dangerous? Dangerous to others? Dangerous to the person who would do it? Crime relevant? Strealing something? Destroying something? Are items relevant? Are other persons relevant? Are animals involved? Attacking a person or animal? Getting close to an animal? Using an item on a person or animal? Using an item on oneself? Fire relevent? Explosives? Great heights? Has nobody ever really done it because it's impossible? Or because it's so dangerous that no-one in their right mind would willingly do it? Or because it's something extremely silly? Or unusual? Or immoral? Or you'd need a combination of persons/animals/items/places/weather conditions/time that's impossible to get? Them: A country? A state? A town? A company? A certain group of people? Is it forbidden by law? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1116 Registered: 5-2009 |
Something dangerous? No. Dangerous to others? No. Dangerous to the person who would do it? No. (Well...) Crime relevant? No. Strealing something? No. Destroying something? No. Are items relevant? Yes. Are other persons relevant? Yesish. Are animals involved? No. Attacking a person or animal? No. Getting close to an animal? No. Using an item on a person or animal? No. Using an item on oneself? No. Fire relevent? No. Explosives? No. Great heights? No. Has nobody ever really done it because it's impossible? No. Or because it's so dangerous that no-one in their right mind would willingly do it? No. Or because it's something extremely silly? Noish. Or unusual? Yes. Or immoral? Noish or No. Or you'd need a combination of persons/animals/items/places/weather conditions/time that's impossible to get? You'd need a combination of items which is improbable to get. It is not impossible. Them: A country? A state? A town? A company? A certain group of people? This is closest. Is it forbidden by law? No. | ||
| Kayleetonkslupin (Kayleetonkslupin)
New member Username: Kayleetonkslupin Post Number: 3856 Registered: 9-2010 |
Are the certain group H/A/Ms? H/A/Fs? Are they of a certain race? A certain religion? Are they even still alive? Is this taking place in the present day? if not, LTPF list of relevant centuries/decades if applicable? (I know nothing actually happened...but would the idea of this happening, and its forbidding, have taken place in a certain time period) | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1118 Registered: 5-2009 |
Are the certain group H/A/Ms? H/A/Fs? HA, most or all of them M. Are they of a certain race? No. A certain religion? No. Are they even still alive? Many but not all of them I think. Is this taking place in the present day? if not, LTPF list of relevant centuries/decades if applicable? The 1970s. (I know nothing actually happened... Well, *something* happened. but would the idea of this happening, and its forbidding, have taken place in a certain time period) | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1238 Registered: 8-2001 |
Forbidden by rule? They: School officials? Club officers? Girl Scout leaders? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1121 Registered: 5-2009 |
Forbidden by rule? Yes. They: School officials? No. Club officers? Yope. Girl Scout leaders? No. | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1243 Registered: 8-2001 |
Hmmm...things like club officers... Country Club? Civic Group? Group like the Elks? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1124 Registered: 5-2009 |
Hmmm...things like club officers... Country Club? Civic Group? Group like the Elks? No. Think bigger - especially geographically. | ||
| Potato (Potato)
New member Username: Potato Post Number: 769 Registered: 7-2010 |
An ethnic group? People of a certain race? Of a certain religion? Is a war relevant? Or any kind of conflict? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1125 Registered: 5-2009 |
An ethnic group? No. People of a certain race? No. Of a certain religion? No. It is an organisation, but not a religious one. Is a war relevant? No. Or any kind of conflict? Noish. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 822 Registered: 1-2011 |
Is military relevant? Before 1970s, was it also forbidden by rule? Before 1970s, was the forbidden thing possible at all? Is technology relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1126 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is military relevant? No. Before 1970s, was it also forbidden by rule? Good question. The rules were open to interpretation. Before 1970s, was the forbidden thing possible at all? Yes. Is technology relevant? No. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 825 Registered: 1-2011 |
After 1970s, was the rule made stricter? After 1970s, was the rule reformulated in order to avoid doubts/interpretation? Is it the rule of international range? Of a national range (if so, please [LTPF list of continents])? Is it a rule of certain professional group? of certain organisation? Is the rule connected with trade? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1127 Registered: 5-2009 |
After 1970s, was the rule made stricter? Yesish, see next question. After 1970s, was the rule reformulated in order to avoid doubts/interpretation? Yes. I think it was still in the 1970s. Is it the rule of international range? Yes. Of a national range (if so, please [LTPF list of continents])? All continents. Is it a rule of certain professional group? Yes, but also of others. of certain organisation? Yes. Is the rule connected with trade? No. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 828 Registered: 1-2011 |
Is United Nations Organisation relevant? Any other global organisation of this type? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1129 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is United Nations Organisation relevant? No. Any other global organisation of this type? A global organisation, but not of this type. | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1333 Registered: 9-2010 |
Is it some law similar to the law banning whaling in Oklahoma? Which bans something which is obviously wrong but which nobody who the law applies to could possibly do anyway? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1131 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is it some law similar to the law banning whaling in Oklahoma? Somewhat, although it's not a law. Which bans something which is obviously wrong but which nobody who the law applies to could possibly do anyway? A bit like that, but quite different. | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1251 Registered: 8-2001 |
Global organizations that are not the UN, nor religious.... WHO? IMF? Is it a non-profit? Is it specific to one discipline - like the Nobel Committee? Does this org have a physical office? Full time employees? Or is it more an group of people that meet various places or a for certain purpose? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1133 Registered: 5-2009 |
Global organizations that are not the UN, nor religious.... WHO? Too much like the UN. IMF? Too much like the UN. Is it a non-profit? Yes. Is it specific to one discipline DOYD of discipline, but I say Yes. - like the Nobel Committee? It is quite different from the Nobel Commitee however. Does this org have a physical office? Yes. Full time employees? Yes, very probably (I can't verify the working hours of the empoyees). Or is it more an group of people that meet various places or a for certain purpose? No. | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 763 Registered: 6-2003 |
Is the organization's field of work mainly: - sports? - economics? - infrastructure? - entertainment? - finance? - environmental protection? - (tele)communication? - public economy/welfare/health? - education? - human rights/civil rights? - science? - law? Is the organization made up by: - member countries? (represented by their government?) - national member organizations? - national/regional chapters? - individuals? Is it a well-known organization? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1135 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the organization's field of work mainly: - sports? This(ish). - economics? - infrastructure? - entertainment? - finance? - environmental protection? - (tele)communication? - public economy/welfare/health? - education? - human rights/civil rights? - science? - law? Is the organization made up by: - member countries? (represented by their government?) - national member organizations? This. - national/regional chapters? - individuals? Is it a well-known organization? Quite so. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 830 Registered: 1-2011 |
Is the organisation the International Olympic Committee? Are drugs relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1137 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the organisation the International Olympic Committee? No. Are drugs relevant? No. | ||
| Redwine (Redwine)
New member Username: Redwine Post Number: 834 Registered: 1-2011 |
Does the organisation acts only in a field of a particular sport discipline? Is the rule in question a rule of particular game? | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1259 Registered: 8-2001 |
World Cup? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1139 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does the organisation acts only in a field of a particular sport discipline? Yes. Is the rule in question a rule of particular game? Yes. World Cup? No world cup is relevant. | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1261 Registered: 8-2001 |
The relevant sport: Sailing? Soccer? US style football? Baseball? Tennis? Swimming? Diving? Equestrian events? track and field event? Gymnastics? Weight Lifting? Skiing? Some form of sledding? Curling? Rodeo event? Is it a team sport? Does it involve animals? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1141 Registered: 5-2009 |
The relevant sport: Sailing? Soccer? US style football? Baseball? Tennis? Swimming? Diving? Equestrian events? track and field event? Gymnastics? Weight Lifting? Skiing? Some form of sledding? Curling? Rodeo event? None of these. Note the (ish) in my answer to Sundowner. Is it a team sport? Basically no, although there are team competitions. Does it involve animals? No. | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 1461 Registered: 12-2010 |
Is it chess? another board game? a card game? | ||
| Vesica (Vesica)
New member Username: Vesica Post Number: 1267 Registered: 8-2001 |
Video games? Professional competitive video gaming? Now I totally want this to be about the International Federation for the Peaceful Promotion of Guitar Hero... (which is unlikely since I just made that up) | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1143 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is it chess? This. another board game? a card game? Video games? Professional competitive video gaming? So, no to the rest. Now I totally want this to be about the International Federation for the Peaceful Promotion of Guitar Hero... (which is unlikely since I just made that up) This would at least be a good reason why nobody really breaks their rules: Because it's an imagined organisation. | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 1467 Registered: 12-2010 |
Does this rule concern the game itself (like, how to move the pieces)? Or something you might do during a game? E.g. "It's not allowed to punch your opponent in the face"? | ||
| Sundowner (Sundowner)
New member Username: Sundowner Post Number: 767 Registered: 6-2003 |
Were the rules of chess changed? the tournament rules? in order to explicitly forbid something? that was unlikely to happen anyway? Was the thing that got forbidden: a particular move? or combination of moves? a particular behavior during a match? Was the thing that got forbidden unlikely to happen: because the preconditions for it only very rarely occur? because in most cases the player who does it would not gain advantage from it? or would even get disadvantage? Any of the World Championships matches of the 70s relevant? Bobby Fisher's refusal to defend his title? Was it made more difficult for the players to agree on remis? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1144 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does this rule concern the game itself (like, how to move the pieces)? Yes. Or something you might do during a game? E.g. "It's not allowed to punch your opponent in the face"? No. Were the rules of chess changed? This. the tournament rules? No. in order to explicitly forbid something? Yes. They didn't simply say "X is forbidden", however (which isn't really relevant). that was unlikely to happen anyway? Yes. Was the thing that got forbidden: a particular move? This. or combination of moves? No. a particular behavior during a match? No. Was the thing that got forbidden unlikely to happen: because the preconditions for it only very rarely occur? Yes. because in most cases the player who does it would not gain advantage from it? Maybe, but not the main reason. or would even get disadvantage? Maybe, but not the main reason. Any of the World Championships matches of the 70s relevant? No. Bobby Fisher's refusal to defend his title? No. Was it made more difficult for the players to agree on remis? No. | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 1468 Registered: 12-2010 |
Is a king involved in the move? queen? rook? bishop? knight? pawn? Check relevant? Checkmate? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 1764 Registered: 6-2008 |
I think I might have heard of this, but don't remember the details and furthermore don't want to $po1l too early. So I'll be vague: Does this regard a theoretical possibility of a never-ending chess game? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1145 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is a king involved in the move? {This.} queen? rook? And this. bishop? knight? pawn? Check relevant? No. Checkmate? No. Does this regard a theoretical possibility of a never-ending chess game? No. | ||
| Doriana (Doriana)
New member Username: Doriana Post Number: 1469 Registered: 12-2010 |
Castling relevant? Artificial castling? Is this an opening move? endgame move? somewhere in between? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1146 Registered: 5-2009 |
Castling relevant? Yes. Artificial castling? No. Is this an opening move? endgame move? somewhere in between? In fact, nowhere. But if I have to place it I say endgame. | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 1766 Registered: 6-2008 |
So the rule forbids castling under specific circumstances? Does it have to do with the positions of the other pieces? Which of one's own pieces remain on the board/uncaptured? same with opponent's? | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1513 Registered: 9-2009 |
Promotion relevant? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1147 Registered: 5-2009 |
So the rule forbids castling under specific circumstances? Yope. Does it have to do with the positions of the other pieces? Besides king and rook? No. Which of one's own pieces remain on the board/uncaptured? Yope, see below. same with opponent's? No. Promotion relevant? Yes. | ||
| Rbruma (Rbruma)
New member Username: Rbruma Post Number: 1514 Registered: 9-2009 |
The promoting pawn belongs to the player having the king and the rook? Or rather to his opponent? Relevant that a castling cannot occur while a king is in check position? That he cannot land on a checked square? That he cannot travel through checked squares? That the King and the rook shouldn't have moved before the castling? The promotion involved: to a q?/r?/b?/k? Relevant? Any of the opposing player's pieces remaining on the board relevant (besides the King, of course)? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1345 Registered: 9-2010 |
Does it involve castling with a promoted pawn that is now a rook? Although that would be impossible since the rook would have moved? But perhaps through some loophole it was possible? And they closed the loophole? Underpromotion in general relevant? Underpromotion to avoid stalemate? To create stalemate? | ||
| Biograd (Biograd)
New member Username: Biograd Post Number: 1779 Registered: 6-2008 |
"since the rook would have moved" But technically, it may not have moved since it WAS a rook, right? (even though it moved when it was a pawn) So is the rule that one can only castle with a rook that was a rook at the start of the game? | ||
| Gregoryuconn (Gregoryuconn)
New member Username: Gregoryuconn Post Number: 1388 Registered: 9-2010 |
Yeah, that could be it, Biograd. But I'm not sure if the rules just specify moving the king two squares towards the rook and the rook to the other side of the king or if it actually specifies squares to move to. But that would be interesting. | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 1149 Registered: 5-2009 |
The promoting pawn belongs to the player having the king and the rook? This. Or rather to his opponent? Relevant that a castling cannot occur while a king is in check position? No. That he cannot land on a checked square? No. That he cannot travel through checked squares? No. That the King and the rook shouldn't have moved before the castling? Yes for the rook. The promotion involved: to a q?/r? This. /b?/k? Relevant? Very much so. Any of the opposing player's pieces remaining on the board relevant (besides the King, of course)? No. Does it involve castling with a promoted pawn that is now a rook? Yes. Although that would be impossible since the rook would have moved? Oh, would it? But perhaps through some loophole it was possible? Maybe. And they closed the loophole? Yes. Underpromotion in general relevant? No, only promotion to a rook. Underpromotion to avoid stalemate? Irrelevant why. To create stalemate? Irrelevant why. "since the rook would have moved" But technically, it may not have moved since it WAS a rook, right? This was the open question before the rules were amended, see below. (even though it moved when it was a pawn) So is the rule that one can only castle with a rook that was a rook at the start of the game? Basically yes, but they used an equivalent condition to amend the rules. But this puzzle is not about its formulation, so it is ready for a ***SPOILER*** In 1972, Max Pam discovered a strange potential loophole in the rules of chess as stated by FIDE: The rules said that castling is permitted if - the king has not previously moved, - the rook which takes part in the castling has not previously moved, - there are no pieces between king and rook, - the king is not currently in check, - the king doesn't end up in check after castling and - the king doesn't have to pass a square where he would be in check. Now suppose White promotes a pawn on e8 to a rook (or Black on e1) - why not castling on the e-file by moving the king to e3 and the rook to e2 (or the black king to e6 and the rook to e7), if the king didn't move before and the relevant squares are free and not under attack? The possibility seems to have been discovered/invented twice in 1971 or 1972: by the French chess master Jean-Luc Seret and a Dutchman by the name of Max Pam. Seret published a chess puzzle around the idea which he declared an April Fool's joke. Pam told the idea to Tim Krabbé, also a Dutchman, who composed a chess puzzle which he *didn't* declare an April Fool's joke. The second publication seems to be the one which was more widely noticed because the move in question is known (although not widely) as "Pam-Krabbé castling". One could argue that the promoted rook did move when it still was a pawn, which was what some did after the "loophole" was discovered. One could also argue that the whole idea is so silly that it can't be a legal move no matter what the wording of the rules is - which was what others did. FIDE decided to make sure the move is illegal by adding to the rules the condition that "the king and the rook are on the same rank". | ||
| Balin (Balin)
New member Username: Balin Post Number: 13963 Registered: 4-2010 |
I have a book of unorthodox chess puzzles back home, some of which include long castling. Clever! |
