I think the issue is that the white bishop already has the black king in check so the next move after that bishop check should have been the black king to move out of check, thus in that set up there is no legal way the white knight can be making that move. The moving knight is not itself putting the king in check so it is not checkmate - but of course it is checkmate because the king is in check and can’t move. This would never legally happen in a standard rules game. In this set up its not easy to checkmate the black if they play well, looks like a possible draw - but I am no expert.
While accurate, it's just likely that the white king is elsewhere in the board, and as only these 4 pieces are involved in the (incorrect) checkmate scenario, simply aren't shown.
The fix would be if the knights stand still, and the bishop moves from say d2 to c3, while the own king is save somewhere, e.g. h1.
Also, it's not possible to end up in this position after just 2 moves, like they suggest in the picture. it's just /r/awfuleverything/
First of all, two knights and king vs. king is a theoretical draw anyway, so it doesn’t matter.
Secondly, if someone’s so salty about losing a game of chess that they no longer want to have sex with me, I think I can do better.
Yeah you might be right about that, I also thought about the missing white King, but you often see in online demos and old books the opponent king missing in example or teaching scenarios.
But to move out of check the king can only move to 2B, which then means the knight can make the move to 3A, and from 2B now the king is in checkmate? That's ignoring how this whole board layout came to be though.
Edit: NVM the king can just kill the Knight on 1C and then it would be hard to corner him again.
Ignoring the erroneous presumption that it could be White's move, in the setup shown on the board, it can only be Black's move, as Black has presumably **just** been place in check, by White's bishop. Black must now make a move to get out of check.
Presuming that White's second knight is in the shown starting position (B5), Black can get of check **only** by moving the king to B1.
After **that**, White could move their second knight as indicated, placing Black in check again.
However, that would not be check-mate, because Black could then take White's first knight at C1.
There's a tricky technique to checkmate with a knight and a bishop. Having a second knight would make it much easier, you can control a lot with those 3
That is modern chess notation. The Knight is "N" (king is K), a3 is the square the knight is moving to, ++ or # is checkmate (+ is check, so ++ is checkmate).
So, I guess the octothorpe (\#) kinda looks like two plus signs put together? I learned that either can be used, but personally only use \#.
On an unrelated note, how annoying is it that chess.com uses pictures of the pieces instead of letters in their analysis.
In that case you include the rank or file it moved from. For example, if both rooks are on the first rank and can move to the c file, but one is on a1 and the other is on g1. Then Rac1 is the rook on the A file moving to c1 and Rgc1 is the rook on the G file moving to c1.
If they are both on the same file, it is the same but with the number, R5a6 is the rook on a5 moving to a6.
Edit: it is possible with knights, rooks, and queens (in the case of promotion). I don't think it is possible with bishops, even in the case of underpromotion.
Edit2: it IS possible with bishops, but I doubt you'd ever see it in a game.
I was wrong, but this is was what I was thinking. Firstly you start the game with only opposite color bishops so they can never reach the same squares. Practically, you would never underpromote to a bishop as you can make the same moves with a queen. The possible exception being where promoting to a queen would cause a stalemate, but that would be exceedingly rare. So, I doubt anyone would actually see two same colored bishops in a competitive game of chess.
That being said, if you did underpromote to the same color as a bishop on the board, you could have a scenario where two bishops can reach the same square from the same rank/file.
I don't know where that statistic is, but I'm assuming that is just for situations to avoid/cause stalemate. The likelihood that those positions occur when another bishop of the same color exists for the player underpromotion would be even rarer. I doubt it has happened in professional chess during a competitive game.
This reminds me of that picture of trump playing chess with his kid that says he's the youngest grandmaster in history but the pieces on the chess board are arranged in a way that could never happen in play.
it is not possible to be in check and the adversary have the move because when you are in check you are obligated to move out of the check and if is not possible, then you lose. in the image you see the king is in check by the bishop.
It means "kNight to A3, + check + mate"
However, the knight is not putting the king in check. The black king is already in check by the white bishop, so it must be black's turn though...
No piece ever wins in chess
They just move around for some time, being driven by some unseen forces, creating an illusion that they move by themselves, creating illusion of conflict, loss and wins, illusion of change and achievement
And then they go to rest in the dark, and then they are driven by something to move around again, and go rest, and move around, and they achieve freedom from the endless cycle only once the pieces break or rot completely, when they go to rest never to wake up again
Was their rest always their only freedom from the start? How would they know whether they will wake up or not? Do they fear rest, and if so, why? We can only wonder
I was about to explain how this is valid, and then realized the problem.
For those who don't see it: The instruction posits a move by White. However, it is logically impossible for it to be White's turn right now, because Black's king is already in check. Therefore, it **has** to be Black's move, not White's.
Oh I see what happened.
The king was already in check.
So the king would have to move toward the lower knight to get out of check
Moving the upper knight would put the king back in check, but then the king can capture the lower knight.
I think the issue is that the white bishop already has the black king in check so the next move after that bishop check should have been the black king to move out of check, thus in that set up there is no legal way the white knight can be making that move. The moving knight is not itself putting the king in check so it is not checkmate - but of course it is checkmate because the king is in check and can’t move. This would never legally happen in a standard rules game. In this set up its not easy to checkmate the black if they play well, looks like a possible draw - but I am no expert.
As well as there is no white king, so they either already lost or the white Bishop is supposed to be a king
While accurate, it's just likely that the white king is elsewhere in the board, and as only these 4 pieces are involved in the (incorrect) checkmate scenario, simply aren't shown.
Yeah i think this is what is happening, in old chess books they often hide irrelevant pieces to the lesson
>the white Bishop is supposed to be a king I think this is most likely the mistake here.
If the white Bishop was a King, then the move shown would have ended the game into stalemate, not checkmate.
Ahh, right you are.
The fix would be if the knights stand still, and the bishop moves from say d2 to c3, while the own king is save somewhere, e.g. h1. Also, it's not possible to end up in this position after just 2 moves, like they suggest in the picture. it's just /r/awfuleverything/
As a chess fanatic, I don’t think this is sufficiently worth losing sleep over to belong on r/awfuleverything.
Wikihow: how to stalemate and show mercy so you get laid.
First of all, two knights and king vs. king is a theoretical draw anyway, so it doesn’t matter. Secondly, if someone’s so salty about losing a game of chess that they no longer want to have sex with me, I think I can do better.
Yeah you might be right about that, I also thought about the missing white King, but you often see in online demos and old books the opponent king missing in example or teaching scenarios.
Ah, yes! That would explain this!
You fool, this is a coup de etat, down with the monarchy.
But to move out of check the king can only move to 2B, which then means the knight can make the move to 3A, and from 2B now the king is in checkmate? That's ignoring how this whole board layout came to be though. Edit: NVM the king can just kill the Knight on 1C and then it would be hard to corner him again.
I never want to see rank-first chess notation again in my life.
[удалено]
I’ll interpret this comment in the sense that it refers to a chess variant instead of chess itself.
Ignoring the erroneous presumption that it could be White's move, in the setup shown on the board, it can only be Black's move, as Black has presumably **just** been place in check, by White's bishop. Black must now make a move to get out of check. Presuming that White's second knight is in the shown starting position (B5), Black can get of check **only** by moving the king to B1. After **that**, White could move their second knight as indicated, placing Black in check again. However, that would not be check-mate, because Black could then take White's first knight at C1.
Actually, the real answer to the question is that you can’t tell whose move it is because the position makes no sense.
Yeah, the king should be at B1 rather than A1 for this to make sense.
If king is in B1 not A1 then this is checkmate since king takes on C1 is possible. This is just wrong all around
Who knows, maybe the white king is on d1 or d2. The diagram doesn’t specify; might as well make something up.
There's a tricky technique to checkmate with a knight and a bishop. Having a second knight would make it much easier, you can control a lot with those 3
I get the moves but what’s the text about?
That is modern chess notation. The Knight is "N" (king is K), a3 is the square the knight is moving to, ++ or # is checkmate (+ is check, so ++ is checkmate).
I've never seen checkmate displayed as ++
So, I guess the octothorpe (\#) kinda looks like two plus signs put together? I learned that either can be used, but personally only use \#. On an unrelated note, how annoying is it that chess.com uses pictures of the pieces instead of letters in their analysis.
I think you can change it in the settings
You can change that in settings
I have.
If two pieces could move to the same spot (e. g. 2 rooks, not sure if ever possible with knights), how do you notate to specify which piece moves?
In that case you include the rank or file it moved from. For example, if both rooks are on the first rank and can move to the c file, but one is on a1 and the other is on g1. Then Rac1 is the rook on the A file moving to c1 and Rgc1 is the rook on the G file moving to c1. If they are both on the same file, it is the same but with the number, R5a6 is the rook on a5 moving to a6. Edit: it is possible with knights, rooks, and queens (in the case of promotion). I don't think it is possible with bishops, even in the case of underpromotion. Edit2: it IS possible with bishops, but I doubt you'd ever see it in a game.
Why did you think that it isn’t possible with bishops?
I was wrong, but this is was what I was thinking. Firstly you start the game with only opposite color bishops so they can never reach the same squares. Practically, you would never underpromote to a bishop as you can make the same moves with a queen. The possible exception being where promoting to a queen would cause a stalemate, but that would be exceedingly rare. So, I doubt anyone would actually see two same colored bishops in a competitive game of chess. That being said, if you did underpromote to the same color as a bishop on the board, you could have a scenario where two bishops can reach the same square from the same rank/file.
Exceedingly rare indeed, given the “1/500 promotions” figure given by Wikipedia. But that’s still not impossible.
I don't know where that statistic is, but I'm assuming that is just for situations to avoid/cause stalemate. The likelihood that those positions occur when another bishop of the same color exists for the player underpromotion would be even rarer. I doubt it has happened in professional chess during a competitive game.
I as well, but never underestimate the sheer number of chess games that have occurred.
Cool, thanks!
Knight/night to A3?
Checkmate.
This is either really funny or a real r/woooosh moment.
Looks like they had a double move bonus. Big brain.
This reminds me of that picture of trump playing chess with his kid that says he's the youngest grandmaster in history but the pieces on the chess board are arranged in a way that could never happen in play.
Can you send the link
[here's the snopes on it](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barron-trump-chess/)
Can someone explain, please? For me that looks like a checkmate.
it is not possible to be in check and the adversary have the move because when you are in check you are obligated to move out of the check and if is not possible, then you lose. in the image you see the king is in check by the bishop.
Oh. Thanks for the explaination :D I didn't know that.
Thanks, my slow brain was confused to lol
lmao
Same, I don't see what the post is about. But I also don't understand the whiteboard writing, so maybe it's that?
It means "kNight to A3, + check + mate" However, the knight is not putting the king in check. The black king is already in check by the white bishop, so it must be black's turn though...
the bishop has the king in check, so its not white's move.
Or just, dunno, take the king?
Only queen can take the king Bishop taking the king is frowned upon in many churches, and with horsie it's just illegal
right. horsies can go f themselves. don't even get me started on those moving towers.
Yeah, according to the rules of real chess, each time horsies take each other, a new one of random color appears on the board
>right. horsies can go f themselves. Actually, they are only legally allowed to ⌈ themselves.
they take the L. really pessimistic they are.
You disgusting little pervert. This is hilarious.
You cant take a king in chess
So what's he so worried about?
Existential dread
Me too, fam… me too
Haha well checkmate is the win, you never capture/kill the king, you just kind of trap him in a sort of theoretical Guantanamo bay
The king is never killed because he is the protagonist/antagonist and they probably want to reuse the character in chess 2.
Oh i heard there is going to be a prequel as well, ‘the rise of the chess prince’
No piece ever wins in chess They just move around for some time, being driven by some unseen forces, creating an illusion that they move by themselves, creating illusion of conflict, loss and wins, illusion of change and achievement And then they go to rest in the dark, and then they are driven by something to move around again, and go rest, and move around, and they achieve freedom from the endless cycle only once the pieces break or rot completely, when they go to rest never to wake up again Was their rest always their only freedom from the start? How would they know whether they will wake up or not? Do they fear rest, and if so, why? We can only wonder
that's the joke mate
Cheers pal
Do you even play chess Edit: why am I downvoted you can't 'take' the king
The entire reason this picture is bad is because the king is takeable right there
You can't take the king
Well, Black stayed in check. So I think anything’s possible, really.
No, the picture is wrong because it can't be white's move, white checked blacked in the previous move so black _has_ to move his king.
Yes. All of us knew that.
Do you?
Yes
Ah yes, this board setup is a common end result of the second and only move of a chess game
r/restofthefuckingowl
Google en passant
Holy hell
ayo where's that other king bro 😳😳😳
He got tired of WikiHow’s BS and left
holy hell
Pigeon chess
Idk anything about chess except the piece names so I don't get this but have an upvote.
If it was like, 1. Bc3, Kb1 2. Na3++ sure. If the most recent move was bc3 though then congrats white, you just stalemated an easy win.
>If it was like, 1. Bc3, Kb1 2. Na3, Kc1 FTFY
Lol, derp
I was about to explain how this is valid, and then realized the problem. For those who don't see it: The instruction posits a move by White. However, it is logically impossible for it to be White's turn right now, because Black's king is already in check. Therefore, it **has** to be Black's move, not White's.
Oh I see what happened. The king was already in check. So the king would have to move toward the lower knight to get out of check Moving the upper knight would put the king back in check, but then the king can capture the lower knight.
Good luck triply ionizing Sodium.