Author: Uri Blass
Date: 04:15:34 12/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2005 at 07:01:41, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On December 04, 2005 at 06:54:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 04, 2005 at 06:43:01, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >> >>>On December 04, 2005 at 06:35:35, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>I do not know about double checks when a piece that moved does not give check. >>> >>>Hi Uri, >>> >>>[D]8/8/3k4/2pP4/8/B2R4/4K3/8 w - c6 0 1 >>> >>>I just composed that. Watch the Pawn e.p. capture move. >>> >>>Reinhard. >> >>Hi Reinhard, >>Thanks I see it now. >[D]> >>It seems that enpassent is the only case that it can happen and it can only >>happen from rook a1-a8 direction and diagnol direction. >>I thought about enpassent capture earlier but not about this example but about >>checks from h5-a5 direction. >> >>Fortunately this example does not lead to a bug in movei. >>I had in the past a bug when I assumed that checks cannot be done from 2 rook >>directions but calculating the direction of checks after a move is not done >>based on the previous move. > >Hi Uri, > >e.p. could be strange. See that e.p. is impossible, PINNED through two pieces at > >[D]8/1k6/8/1KpP1r2/8/8/8/8 w - c6 0 1 > >Reinhard. Hi Reinhard, I know this idea. see the last diagram in http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~peter/perft.htm that is about the same idea when 1.g4 fxg3 or 1.e4 fxe3 or 1.e4 c5 2.bxc6 are illegal Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.