Timeline for Who attempted to betray the Boston King?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2021 at 14:52 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 62 characters in body
|
| Mar 19, 2019 at 1:29 | vote | accept | Rewan Demontay | ||
| S Mar 19, 2019 at 1:29 | history | bounty ended | Rewan Demontay | ||
| S Mar 19, 2019 at 1:29 | history | notice removed | Rewan Demontay | ||
| Mar 13, 2019 at 12:51 | vote | accept | Rewan Demontay | ||
| Mar 19, 2019 at 1:29 | |||||
| Mar 12, 2019 at 5:36 | answer | added | Amorydai | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:56 | comment | added | Brandon_J | Not to be Debbie Downer (but to be Debbie Downer) I thought we were supposed to be following chess rules.... | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:16 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 147 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:15 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | Incidentally, although that extra knight seems to have been a mistake, there's something later in the story that fits very well with it. The king's son is a knight, and at the end the king sends his son "along with two other knights" to arrest the traitor. But maybe they're a different kind of knight since by the third diagram only one black knight remains on the board. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:13 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 147 characters in body
|
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:13 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | If the extra knight is an anomaly, here are some more just in case they're mistakes. (1) Second diagram has four white knights and a white bishop that can't have come from its home square, implying at least three pawn promotions, but only two white pawns missing. (2) Second diagram has a white pawn on c2 that wasn't there in the first diagram. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 2:10 | comment | added | Brandon_J | Kinda....kinda hard to mesh these things together IMO. Any possibility of removing that third knight with a story edit, or at least explaining that he is an anomaly? Obviously one is harder than the other, so I won't push it. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:57 | comment | added | Brandon_J | @GarethMcCaughan here is how to do the built-in thing. I think it works for FEN and PGN. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:54 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | ... that could just as well (in-story) be a deliberate trick to confuse white, rather than indicating any malfeasance within the black camp. Etc. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:54 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | E.g., the sort of thing I want to be able to say is "look, in this position you can tell that black's last move was X, but that means that such-and-such a piece could have done Y to protect the black king but didn't, so that piece is the traitor". But if we don't know by what rules the game is actually being played, that sort of reasoning can't work. We could try to make the rule-violations themselves be the evidence of treachery, but if e.g. we decide that one of the black knights in the first diagram is a bishop in disguise then [...continues] | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:49 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | This sort of puzzle seems hard to make any progress on, because plainly we aren't dealing with an actually-possible chess game, played by the normal rules, which somehow tallies with the events in the story (because there are impossible things in the diagrams); but if the chess game isn't being played by the normal rules then it seems like anything could be happening and it's hard to see how to draw any actual conclusions. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:48 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | Also not making any sense at first glance: in the first position W has "obviously" made at least one pawn capture (maybe two for pawn-promotion reasons) but black still has 16 pieces. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:44 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | So, is it deliberate that the first diagram has three black knights even though all eight black pawns are still on the board? I mean, obviously it might be -- it's unclear what sort of metaphorical shenanigans might be going on -- but it seems rather odd. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:43 | comment | added | Gareth McCaughan♦ | Damn, is there a built-in SE FEN viewer? I didn't know, so I just copied-and-pasted the images from the site the OP linked to. I bet the SE ones are nicer-looking. Oh well, never mind. | |
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:39 | history | edited | Gareth McCaughan♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add diagrams
|
| Mar 11, 2019 at 1:39 | comment | added | Brandon_J | Maybe try showing the chess positions using images or the built-in stackexchange FEN viewer. I think maybe people don't feel like clicking the links. | |
| S Mar 11, 2019 at 1:15 | history | bounty started | Rewan Demontay | ||
| S Mar 11, 2019 at 1:15 | history | notice added | Rewan Demontay | Draw attention | |
| Mar 7, 2019 at 3:28 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2019 at 12:21 | history | edited | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2019 at 4:51 | history | asked | Rewan Demontay | CC BY-SA 4.0 |