The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Assume that you have a situation where the King is in check from more than one piece. Is it possible to have such a situation where you can move one piece, other than the King, and get out of check? If so, explain your answer please.
I don't believe this is possible. To en passant, the previous move had to have been that pawn you are capturing. Otherwise you cannot en passant. I just can't envision any situation where advancing a pawn two spaces and putting the other player in check by two pieces would allow the other player to en passant out of check.
Here's the Australian definition of Russell Crowe's Citizenship.
Russell Crowe does something profoundly stupid and/or violent - New Zealander
Russell Crowe hasn't done anything stupid for a while, but his last movie kinda sucked - Australasian
Russell Crowe wins some award, stars in a blockbuster movie, or receives some significant accolade - Australian
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Care to explain? I can’t imagine giving double check using a pawn, let alone how capturing this pawn en passant will save you from the other check. I need to try this at home on the real chess board and hopefully will figured it out.
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
From a (former) professional chess player (myself):
NO. It is absolutely impossible.
The ONLY way to get out of a double-check is to move your king. If not possible you're checkmated. (Yahoo! Chess has a bug here)
Note that a triple-check is impossible in the first place.
There are three ways to get out of a simple check: capturing the checking piece, putting something in between the checking piece and the king (not if there are no empty squares in between, and also not if the attacker is a knight), and moving the king.
There is basically one way to give a double check, it is always a "discovered check", and essentially the two checking actions are by different pieces and work in different directions; different pieces means you can't capture both, different directions means you can't put something in between to block both checks. On a double check, the only escape is by moving the king.
Here are some examples of discovered check (using algebraic notation):
(1) White Kh1, Re5, Bd4; Black Kh8. Discovered single checks would be most rook moves; double checks would be Re8 or Rh5.
(2) White Kh1, Ne5, Bd4; Black Kh8. Discovered single checks would be most knight moves; double checks would be Nf7 or Ng6.
(3) White Kh1, Re1, pe2; Black Ke4, pd3. The only check is a double one: pawn e2 takes d3.
You can easily verify none of those can be recovered from without moving the black king.
It is impossible to offer a triple check; moving a piece can cause a check by that piece itself, and by the one piece it discovers, as in the examples above.
Not enough detail. If would depend on the pieces putting the king in check and their positions on the board. Bishops, Knights, Queen, Castles, pawns or some combination.
Castling can sometimes handle the problem but that is not one piece and does involve the king.
Detail doesn't matter. If it's not possible, it's not possible. It was nice of you to list chess pieces though (they're called "rooks", not "castles"). And castling can't "sometimes" handle the problem, it never can. Not only would the king move making it invalid for this problem, but a standard rule of chess is that you can't castle out of check ever.
The only way it would be possible would be if there were a discovered check where 2 rooks were on the same rank or file as the king, or a bishop and queen (or 2 bishops) on the same diagonal as the king. However that would be really stretching it because under normal terminology the king is not under check by both those pieces - only 1 of them.
Of course if 1 of the pieces involved in the discovered check is a knight, then nothing can be done because a knight's path can never be blocked. Only 1 of the 2 pieces can be blocked, and only 1 of the 2 pieces can be captured.
For those of you about to jump on my "2 bishops on same diagonal" comment, technically that is possible if you promoted a pawn to a bishop for some reason. (Normally the only reason to avoid promoting to a queen is if stalemating the opposing king by the promotion is a concern, either immediately or if you're worried about making a mistake down the road in a speed chess match.)
I am not sure what your anger is about. It does not seem to be appropriate on a forum that hopes to build interest and membership.
At one point I played competitive chess. A slang term for rooks is castles (many people I knew called the rooks castles). You are right that you cannot castle out of check. I did not read the question that check was present but that check was eminent.
I'm not sure why you picked up on anger. I simply replied to the inaccuracies in your post. You might have played "competitive" chess, whatever you mean by that, but it doesn't make your post any more authoritative. The original question was relatively logical and technical in nature - effectively a math problem - and I think you'll find on any technical forum if you post an incorrect answer you're going to get corrected. At least I hope so - that's really one of the main reasons for having a public forum - so answers can get peer reviewed and corrected, making the whole process much more valuable. I'm sure if you asked a question here and got conflicting answers, you'd appreciate somebody clearing up the discrepancies.
So.... lighten up dude
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 23-May-17 22:35