Timeline for Never kill your king ... without first seeking proper legal advice!
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2021 at 11:37 | comment | added | justhalf | Ah, sure then. Thanks Albert and loopy! =) You did a great job too with your 30 points answer :) | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 11:36 | comment | added | loopy walt | No, no, it's fine. Keep it. You did enough ground work to fully deserve it. I'm happy with the checkmark :-) | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 5:06 | comment | added | justhalf | Eh, but you put the bounty asking for 30 score, and loopywalt got 30 right? I think it would be fitting for loopywalt to get the bounty. The idea is quite different even though ideas were taken from my answer (and your example). | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 4:58 | comment | added | Albert.Lang | Oops, didn't think of that. No, you keep the bounty. I would have given it to you anyway had I known that it can't be split. Sorry for the confusion, @loopywalt. | |
| Mar 22, 2021 at 2:47 | comment | added | justhalf | Sure, thanks for the bounty! So you want me to create a 50 rep bounty for loopywalt? I think the minimum for a question for which one has an answer is 100 though. I can give 100 to loopywalt too, no problem, hehe | |
| Mar 21, 2021 at 21:58 | history | bounty ended | Albert.Lang | ||
| Mar 21, 2021 at 21:57 | comment | added | Albert.Lang | I would like to split the bounty between you and @loopywalt. So I'll award it to you and it would be cool if you could make a new smaller bounty and award it to loopy. | |
| Mar 20, 2021 at 9:42 | comment | added | Arnaud Mortier | That's right, my bad! Good job! | |
| Mar 20, 2021 at 9:39 | comment | added | justhalf | Yep, in this case invalidating the retrograde analysis invalidates the mate in one since the mate in one relies on it, and doesn't create avenue for another mate in one, which I why I also explored some alternatives mates and why they don't work. | |
| Mar 19, 2021 at 18:44 | comment | added | Arnaud Mortier | I think that you misread the definition of accessories (or maybe I did): I think that removing the piece should invalidate the existence of a mate in one, that's all. Not invalidate the retrograde analysis. | |
| Mar 14, 2021 at 7:10 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add proof game
|
| Mar 13, 2021 at 8:16 | comment | added | justhalf | The only missing part for 30 score solution is how to cover the b and f file white pawns with black pieces so the pawn capture argument doesn't need to be used, and so we can add back the black pawn on d-file. | |
| Mar 13, 2021 at 7:44 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix explanation.
|
| Mar 13, 2021 at 7:14 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix the score, add 29-score solution.
|
| Mar 13, 2021 at 7:01 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix the score, add 29-score solution.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 11:06 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add disclaimer about incorrect 29-score solution.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 10:52 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix score 20 answer.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 10:47 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix score 20 answer.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 10:38 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add possible regicide score of 29
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 10:28 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add possible regicide score of 28.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 10:05 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add note how to improve the score.
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 9:41 | history | edited | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fix typo
|
| Mar 12, 2021 at 9:36 | history | answered | justhalf | CC BY-SA 4.0 |