Skip to main content
Puzzling

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • $\begingroup$ So, you found a better solution to the other puzzle, but decided to post it as a riddle instead? $\endgroup$
    – justhalf
    Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ @justhalf Yes, as it relies on a loophole in the rules and feels very different in spirit. Also I thought it was more fun to see what you people can do instead of running away with that little "cheat". $\endgroup$
    – Albert.Lang
    Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 5:03
  • $\begingroup$ Hm, if I understand this correctly, it's only adding the requirement to use en passant in the solution? If that's the case, I feel like it's not a loophole. But perhaps I missed something here. $\endgroup$
    – justhalf
    Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 6:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @justhalf Technically, you are, of course, correct. But the whole "remove one piece at a time and check again" business was originally just a way to get a handle on the vague idea "every piece has a role in the checkmate". Now, having an actual role (like blocking a piece from capturing a checking piece) and being a clue in a retrograde analysis to show that the last move couldn't have been anything other than a given pawn's double move are very different and I think it is fair to assume the latter was not on loopy walt's mind at the time. $\endgroup$
    – Albert.Lang
    Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 6:35
  • $\begingroup$ @justhalf I've added an example that I think demonstrates what I mean. To say that the pawns e2 and g2 are actively participating in the checkmate is a bit of a stretch, but they are clearly accessories by the formal definition. $\endgroup$
    – Albert.Lang
    Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 7:22