Is it possible for a triple check in regular chess? • page 2/8 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

great question @A_0123456 , thanks for asking, made me think and learn a bit.

@nayf is one of the few remaining who directly equates IQ with an artificial online chess rating.Basically,that's what they do when they got nuthin'.Just keep trailing me around,laddy..yr sure to pick up lots of useful stuff to help you thru life.

wavaxa22

#13

Well, as a guy who is working on a knightrider engine, I found this thread useful. I hadn't considered the possibility of a triple check, and a triple check via en passant would be a good test case to help weed out bugs.

Lapsus666

#14

In atomic chess, it would be possible with an explosion blowing up 3 pieces in front of the king and letting 2 bishops and a rook check.
Now the question would be, "Is it possible to quadra-check ?"

In atomic chess, it would be possible with an explosion blowing up 3 pieces in front of the king and letting 2 bishops and a rook check. Now the question would be, "Is it possible to quadra-check ?"

bunyip

#15

The real challenge is the fabled "octa- check".

krasnaya edited

#16

@nayf said (#10):

I agree that for a proven moron with a 1200 rating, a question that forces one to think is not great at all.

You are right, of course. Still, the "don't feed the trolls"-rule applies here.

Otherwise, i would point out in reply to #12 that an artificial online rating might not be proof of (the absence of any measurable) IQ but the inability to understand basic mathematical truths (like shown here: https://lichess.org/forum/team-philosophical-philosophers/0-divided-by-0?page=3 ) probably is. But, of course, i will not do that.

krasnaya

@nayf said (#10): > I agree that for a proven moron with a 1200 rating, a question that forces one to think is not great at all. You are right, of course. Still, the "don't feed the trolls"-rule applies here. Otherwise, i would point out in reply to #12 that an artificial online rating might not be proof of (the absence of any measurable) IQ but the inability to understand basic mathematical truths (like shown here: https://lichess.org/forum/team-philosophical-philosophers/0-divided-by-0?page=3 ) probably is. But, of course, i will not do that. krasnaya

nayf edited

#17

@krasnaya

Yes, when I said "proven moron", I meant from numerous other threads, where he proved incapable of following an argument, as in the link you provided. His low rating isn't the proof, just an expected confirmation. The imbecile even thinks I'm "trailing [him] around", when he replied to me first. But you're right that one ought to refrain from feeding the troll; additionally, as has been remarked, one can't fix stupid.

To summarise the answer (from #7), all pieces except a N attack in a straight line (diagonal or vertical/horizontal). Straight lines intersect at most only once. So two non-N pieces cannot simultaneously be blocked by a single square and attack the same second square. This holds for any two non-N pieces. So no N move or pawn move, whether en passant or not, can unblock and thus discover a double check. So they cannot themselves add a third check, only a second check.

@krasnaya Yes, when I said "proven moron", I meant from numerous other threads, where he proved incapable of following an argument, as in the link you provided. His low rating isn't the proof, just an expected confirmation. The imbecile even thinks I'm "trailing [him] around", when he replied to me first. But you're right that one ought to refrain from feeding the troll; additionally, as has been remarked, one can't fix stupid. To summarise the answer (from #7), all pieces except a N attack in a straight line (diagonal or vertical/horizontal). Straight lines intersect at most only once. So two non-N pieces cannot simultaneously be blocked by a single square and attack the same second square. This holds for any two non-N pieces. So no N move or pawn move, whether en passant or not, can unblock and thus discover a double check. So they cannot themselves add a third check, only a second check.

gayweather

#18

IQ is overrated, I would say that the state of the mind and character traits (leadership qualities, charisma, likeable personality) are much more important than high IQ. Some sociopaths (those that do not end up in a prison cell) also tend to excel in life, there seems to be many examples as of late.

BernardLec

#19

I'm sorry if i'm not clear, I don't really master english language.

A long time ago, the chess rules said something like :
The player must move to avoid the checks when his king is checked by one or two pieces.

Somebody found a position where the king was in check by two pieces, then a piece moves that allows the king to be checked three times and the checkmates the other king. (Sorry, I don't have the reference).

Since then, rules have changed, and the king must escape all the checks (that is not limited by two).

I'm sorry if i'm not clear, I don't really master english language. A long time ago, the chess rules said something like : The player must move to avoid the checks when his king is checked by one or two pieces. Somebody found a position where the king was in check by two pieces, then a piece moves that allows the king to be checked three times and the checkmates the other king. (Sorry, I don't have the reference). Since then, rules have changed, and the king must escape all the checks (that is not limited by two).

#20