lichess.org
Donate

The Castle of Chess Vampires

A short glossary reminder please. Otherwise glad to see you on the writing again. And more findings about incompressible chess.

like a portable footnote. that does not need us to go back to the begginning of the book.
e.g. I bumped on "retracting". It might be a term of the retrograde trade, but a friendly few words about it in footnote might save us some trip. Otherwise I do recall some of the concepts that allowed me to try to read at first pass, until I got there. It stopped my fast reading pass. No biggie, just a suggestion for robust technical writing.

A short glossary reminder please. Otherwise glad to see you on the writing again. And more findings about incompressible chess. like a portable footnote. that does not need us to go back to the begginning of the book. e.g. I bumped on "retracting". It might be a term of the retrograde trade, but a friendly few words about it in footnote might save us some trip. Otherwise I do recall some of the concepts that allowed me to try to read at first pass, until I got there. It stopped my fast reading pass. No biggie, just a suggestion for robust technical writing.

I tried to make this post self-contained.

It is hard to be fully precise without distracting the reader. Do you really think the term "retraction" deserves an explanation?

I tried to make this post self-contained. It is hard to be fully precise without distracting the reader. Do you really think the term "retraction" deserves an explanation?

I don't think I understand correctly? The moves played in the game seem to be random (missing bishop on f8 indicates that either Qh7 - Qg8 - Qxf8 or Nxf8 MUST have been played at some point? With that in mind couldn't white/black both have shuffled queens/bishops to mix-up parity? Please if anyone can clarify what I'm missing I'd appreciate it

I don't think I understand correctly? The moves played in the game seem to be random (missing bishop on f8 indicates that either Qh7 - Qg8 - Qxf8 or Nxf8 MUST have been played at some point? With that in mind couldn't white/black both have shuffled queens/bishops to mix-up parity? Please if anyone can clarify what I'm missing I'd appreciate it

Ohh nevermind I understand now... Black never moved their queen, nor their bishops, nor their rooks, nor their king (hence why black retains castling rights) therefore black only moved their knights (and h6) thus the position of the g1 rook can be deduced.

Ohh nevermind I understand now... Black never moved their queen, nor their bishops, nor their rooks, nor their king (hence why black retains castling rights) therefore black only moved their knights (and h6) thus the position of the g1 rook can be deduced.

@ambrona said in #3:

I tried to make this post self-contained.

It is hard to be fully precise without distracting the reader. Do you really think the term "retraction" deserves an explanation?

I just worry it might not mean what I think it means in some "unicorn" way. I mean a subtelty outside of my knowledge that if I think it only mean looking a move in the reverse turn direction, I might be missing something. "unicorn" is for unrestricted comprehension tendency of mine. (an inside joke with someone here I keep discussing such things with...).

@ambrona said in #3: > I tried to make this post self-contained. > > It is hard to be fully precise without distracting the reader. Do you really think the term "retraction" deserves an explanation? I just worry it might not mean what I think it means in some "unicorn" way. I mean a subtelty outside of my knowledge that if I think it only mean looking a move in the reverse turn direction, I might be missing something. "unicorn" is for unrestricted comprehension tendency of mine. (an inside joke with someone here I keep discussing such things with...).

First of all, do vampire-human beings play chess? I permit myself to make a reminder of Barnabas Collins in the saga "Dark Shadows" which I watched in a TV series some ages ago. I might recall a scene where the count Barnabas played a game of chess with his darling Josette.
Unfortunately for the vampire lovers, the above-mentioned series was discontinued because of the actor who represented Count Barnabas passed away misteriously.

First of all, do vampire-human beings play chess? I permit myself to make a reminder of Barnabas Collins in the saga "Dark Shadows" which I watched in a TV series some ages ago. I might recall a scene where the count Barnabas played a game of chess with his darling Josette. Unfortunately for the vampire lovers, the above-mentioned series was discontinued because of the actor who represented Count Barnabas passed away misteriously.

also I am sorry but I am sure there is a 960 position that would be the illegal ancestor of that vampire position mirror. (if I got my arithmetics right here, in words). So it might be a question of goggles this vampire thing. Polarized light maybe.

also I am sorry but I am sure there is a 960 position that would be the illegal ancestor of that vampire position mirror. (if I got my arithmetics right here, in words). So it might be a question of goggles this vampire thing. Polarized light maybe.

Very interesting puzzle. At first I thought it can't possibly be correct because it should be possible to just move the knights around to get extra moves instead of moving the rook. But eventually I realised it hinges on the fascinating fact - which I did not previously know - that for a knight to get back to its original square, it always needs an even number of moves (2/4/6 etc). A knight cannot leave a square and return to that square in an odd number of moves (1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc).

I guess it's because a knight has to alternate black & white squares each move?

Anyway, this means that the premise of the question is correct, and once you factor in the other reasoning, the rook DOES INDEED have to be on the identified square.

Very clever!

Very interesting puzzle. At first I thought it can't possibly be correct because it should be possible to just move the knights around to get extra moves instead of moving the rook. But eventually I realised it hinges on the fascinating fact - which I did not previously know - that for a knight to get back to its original square, it always needs an even number of moves (2/4/6 etc). A knight *cannot* leave a square and return to that square in an odd number of moves (1, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc). I guess it's because a knight has to alternate black & white squares each move? Anyway, this means that the premise of the question is correct, and once you factor in the other reasoning, the rook DOES INDEED have to be on the identified square. Very clever!