Related topic (but don't read yet if you want to solve the exercise from #10 first):
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess/3MOYWXZY
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess-ii-the-chase/qvi2ztjt
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess-iii-the-encounter/XLnwE361
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess/3MOYWXZY
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess-ii-the-chase/qvi2ztjt
lichess.org/@/ambrona/blog/vampires-in-chess-iii-the-encounter/XLnwE361
@gilligan841 said in #10:
> If you want to break the rules and start as black, find a fellow that will accept to play like this on Lichess and, then, play the Knights until you can play black first. It means that the Knights will have to move and come back at original positions for Knights.
>
> Here is a good puzzle, what would be the fastest Knight moves on both sides to accomplish that?
It is not possible. In order to achieve that, you’d need a move sequence where white takes one more move than black to bring the knights back to a starting square. So one of them needs to have a sequence with an odd number of moves and the other one a sequence with an even number of moves. However, any sequence of moves where knights start at b1 and g1 and then reach b1 and g1 again will consist of an even number of moves. If the knights end up in their own original square it will be even number of moves for both knights (proof: they swap the color of their square on each move so it takes an even number of moves to get back onto the original color) or if you swap knights each knight needs an odd number of moves, but as you have two of them you’ll end up with a total even number of moves again.
> If you want to break the rules and start as black, find a fellow that will accept to play like this on Lichess and, then, play the Knights until you can play black first. It means that the Knights will have to move and come back at original positions for Knights.
>
> Here is a good puzzle, what would be the fastest Knight moves on both sides to accomplish that?
It is not possible. In order to achieve that, you’d need a move sequence where white takes one more move than black to bring the knights back to a starting square. So one of them needs to have a sequence with an odd number of moves and the other one a sequence with an even number of moves. However, any sequence of moves where knights start at b1 and g1 and then reach b1 and g1 again will consist of an even number of moves. If the knights end up in their own original square it will be even number of moves for both knights (proof: they swap the color of their square on each move so it takes an even number of moves to get back onto the original color) or if you swap knights each knight needs an odd number of moves, but as you have two of them you’ll end up with a total even number of moves again.
@M0r1 said in #13:
> It is not possible.
Nice explanation! You ruined the fun, though XD
There is a doable approach: both players reveal their first moves, then White cedes a tempo.
Let's say we intended to play (Black first) 1.e5 e4. After the moves 1.e3 e5 2.e4, the position is just the same as Black playing first.
> It is not possible.
Nice explanation! You ruined the fun, though XD
There is a doable approach: both players reveal their first moves, then White cedes a tempo.
Let's say we intended to play (Black first) 1.e5 e4. After the moves 1.e3 e5 2.e4, the position is just the same as Black playing first.
@Mirayaanuds said in #1:
> Why does white actually move first??
Here's a plausible explanation I found on the internet that I summarized:
In the olden days, black was thought to be a lucky color (racist jokes apart), so white was given the advantage of the first move, so as to make the game equal.
> Why does white actually move first??
Here's a plausible explanation I found on the internet that I summarized:
In the olden days, black was thought to be a lucky color (racist jokes apart), so white was given the advantage of the first move, so as to make the game equal.
Who plays first is a pragmatic standardized rule. Light and dark sounds better, than saying white and black, especially when the colors are not exactly that color. The color white has often been symbolically associated with fresh starts, and black has also been associated to opponents, it seems appropriate that it remains that way.
theconversation.com/why-does-white-always-go-first-in-chess-141962
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/in-chess-why-does-white-go-first
theconversation.com/why-does-white-always-go-first-in-chess-141962
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/in-chess-why-does-white-go-first
@Toscani said in #16:
>
In English there is a nice distinction between using White and Black for the players and light and dark for the squares.
In my own mother tongue which is Dutch, we just say "wit" and "zwart", for both the players and the squares.
>
In English there is a nice distinction between using White and Black for the players and light and dark for the squares.
In my own mother tongue which is Dutch, we just say "wit" and "zwart", for both the players and the squares.
Other sports have meanings for the colors too.
www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-is-white-ch1TEWhXSJuo1rkrXjda2g
White: The start of the journey (a move, ply 1)
Black: The completion of the journey (a move, ply 2)
With knowledge we can extrapolate common grounds and finally understand why white starts first.
www.perplexity.ai/search/Why-is-white-ch1TEWhXSJuo1rkrXjda2g
White: The start of the journey (a move, ply 1)
Black: The completion of the journey (a move, ply 2)
With knowledge we can extrapolate common grounds and finally understand why white starts first.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.