Talk:Monochromatic chess

Contradiction

If the knight can never move, how is king side castling possible? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.61.50.164 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, the knight makes a double jump. This is in contrast to what the article says - I'll work on it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The king's knight could have gotten captured on its home square, say by an opposing bishop which then moves away. Of course, one would wonder why the king's rook (which must still be on its home square if castling is to follow) did not recapture the invading bishop. Thus it would seem to make castling legal, though peculiar, which is sufficient for a problem scenario. WHPratt (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@WHPratt: Becaue Rh1xg1 changes colour. ;) Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You're right. It was a safe capture. I guess I let conventional logic slip in! ;) WHPratt (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

checkmate

Can a player escape checkmate by blocking or capturing the attacking piece(s) with a non-king piece (provided that that piece's move meets the monochromatic restriction)? Emurphy42 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By definition, checkmate is inescapable. But check can indeed be escaped in the way you suggest. Double sharp (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Why?

I'm guessing that most reading this find the idea of monochromatic chess trivial and/or ridiculous.

I'd just point out that Smulyan was trying to make a popular science out of retrograde analysis, wherein one reconstructs a chess position by determining the moves that created it. This has some -- limited -- value in conventional chess problems.

I believe that the idea originated in a book of his which had none other than Sherlock Holmes continually dropping in on an 1890s scene with a chessboard, and enerringly telling everyone just who had played just what moves.

However, by assuming that a given game was "monochromatic," Smulyan was able to backtrack an analysis to a far earlier point in time than one would think possible. So, one character or the other would confess (with just twelve pieces remaining on the board) that they had been making wild and reckless moves, but at no point had anyone moved from a white square to a black one or vice-versa. This enabled Holmes to state than "Ah! Then obviously you, Sir Herbie, began as White with the Queen's Bishop's Pawn, after which Colonel Dorkster brought out his kingside knight* . . . ," something like that. And, of course, Holmes had an explanation for everything.

It was all in fun!

(Had to log in again to get the sig correct.) WHPratt (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. That wouldn't work. As knights can't move, both sides must always open with pawn two-steps! WHPratt (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Chess problem

The pawn on g3 can be white, it could have started on h2 and captured a piece on g3 VanZa39 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

But then the king could not have gotten out to b4. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)