[markobr] An unspeakable crime Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - June 2011 » [markobr] An unspeakable crime « Previous Next »

Author Message
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1114
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2011 - 11:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 6:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 6:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 7:07 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 8:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Forbidden by rule?

They:
School officials?
Club officers?
Girl Scout leaders?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1121
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 9:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 9:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 10:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2011 - 11:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 7:24 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 8:44 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 9:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 10:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 1:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is United Nations Organisation relevant? Any other global organisation of this type?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1129
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 1:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 3:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 3:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 7:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2011 - 8:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 8:35 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 8:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 11:14 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the organisation the International Olympic Committee? Are drugs relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1137
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 11:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the organisation the International Olympic Committee? No. Are drugs relevant? No.
Redwine (Redwine)
New member
Username: Redwine

Post Number: 834
Registered: 1-2011
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

World Cup?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1139
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 1:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 4:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 5:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is it chess? another board game? a card game?
Vesica (Vesica)
New member
Username: Vesica

Post Number: 1267
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 7:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 9:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 9:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 10:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 10:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 10:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 10:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 11:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2011 - 9:08 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2011 - 9:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2011 - 11:32 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Promotion relevant?
Markobr (Markobr)
New member
Username: Markobr

Post Number: 1147
Registered: 5-2009
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2011 - 6:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2011 - 9:27 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Monday, June 06, 2011 - 5:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - 7:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"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
Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2011 - 10:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

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
Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2011 - 6:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I have a book of unorthodox chess puzzles back home, some of which include long castling. Clever!

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: