Author: Martin Grabriel
Date: 17:59:15 11/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
Gee, you are right. A pawn move which is a capture can satisfy the condition. Thanks. On November 16, 2000 at 02:25:32, Bill Gletsos wrote: >On November 15, 2000 at 23:51:15, Martin Grabriel wrote: > >>a pawn move that reveals a discovered check ? - that check cannot be a double >>check >> >> >>On November 15, 2000 at 20:40:16, Lenard Spencer wrote: >> >>>This question may probably be best answered by the problemists, but if what I'm >>>thinking is correct, it may be possible to make looking for double checks go a >>>lot faster than the brute force approach of looking all over the board for more >>>than one checker. >>> >>>Has anybody seen anything written on the subject of what makes a double check a >>>"legal" double check? I mean, one that can only happen in the course of a game? >>> One example, for a pawn to be involved in a double check (not counting >>>promotions), it can only be on a capture, discovering a rook or queen behind it. >>> >>>I have been looking long and hard at this, and it seems to me (of course I'm >>>only a 1250 OTB player) that there are only certain circumstances that will >>>allow a legal double check. I would like to locate any material like this to >>>see whether I am right or wrong. >>> >>>Thanks in advance for any help. > > >Martin, > >Of course it can be a double check. >A simple example is as follows: >Black king e8 >Black pawn d7 >White king h1 >White rook e1 >White pawn e6 > >White plays e6 x d7 >and that is a double check by both the pawn and the rook
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.