Mate in 0

huh?

Turn the board 180 degrees. 🙂

Originally posted by twilight2007
Turn the board 180 degrees. 🙂

Nice try. 1...gxh3ep!!

you guys are dumb!! somebody pulled this before....there is no problem...it IS mate.

Originally posted by twilight2007
Turn the board 180 degrees. 🙂

Does that count as a move?

Originally posted by David113
Does that count as a move?

You don't have to move the board.
You just walk round the table and sit at the other side.

Originally posted by twilight2007
Turn the board 180 degrees. 🙂

that's correct! 😛

Originally posted by Dutch Defense
huh?

[fen]8/8/1P6/Pp1P4/pk6/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]

The fen reads as a victory for Black, resignation becuase white has no chance to catch the white pawn after b7.

Flipping the board doesn't change the direction the pawns move. Changing the Fen would.

P-

8/8/1P6/Pp1P4/pk6/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1

Originally posted by Phlabibit
The fen reads as a victory for Black, resignation becuase white has no chance to catch the white pawn after b7.

Flipping the board doesn't change the direction the pawns move. Changing the Fen would.

P-

8/8/1P6/Pp1P4/pk6/8/1K6/8 w - - 0 1

Eat my hate, hate-sponge 😠

Originally posted by tomtom232
you guys are dumb!! somebody pulled this before....there is no problem...it [b]IS mate.[/b]

There is no on-board evidence that the board is set up incorrectly. However, once the board is turned, there is a 50% chance that en passant is legal for Black. I have more justification for my ep capture than OP had for turning the board.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is no on-board evidence that the board is set up incorrectly. However, once the board is turned, there is a 50% chance that en passant is legal for Black. I have more justification for my ep capture than OP had for turning the board.

Are you a lawyer?🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is no on-board evidence that the board is set up incorrectly. However, once the board is turned, there is a 50% chance that en passant is legal for Black. I have more justification for my ep capture than OP had for turning the board.

If there are no proofs that e.p.p is possible, it is not possible.

There are no probabilities here. Either it is possible, or it is not possible. There is nothing in between, like 50% possible.

Give the proof that e.p. is within the rules, and the thing is settled. If you don't the position stands as it is, as a mate.

And, no, I'm not a lawyer either.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If there are no proofs that e.p.p is possible, it is not possible.

There are no probabilities here. Either it is possible, or it is not possible. There is nothing in between, like 50% possible.

Give the proof that e.p. is within the rules, and the thing is settled. If you don't the position stands as it is, as a mate.

And, no, I'm not a lawyer either.

If there are no proofs that e.p.p is possible, it is not possible.

Says who? On what authority?

There are no probabilities here. Either it is possible, or it is not possible. There is nothing in between, like 50% possible.

On the contrary, there are probabilities, because we don't know what White's last move was. Once the board is rotated, there are two possibilities:
1) White's last move was h2-h4
2) White's last move was h3-h4

Give the proof that e.p. is within the rules, and the thing is settled. If you don't the position stands as it is, as a mate.

First, prove that the board is oriented incorrectly; then you will have the right to ask for proof of en passant.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you a lawyer?🙂

Yeah. My specialty is chess problem cases. Pro bono, of course.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
[b]If there are no proofs that e.p.p is possible, it is not possible.

Says who? On what authority?

There are no probabilities here. Either it is possible, or it is not possible. There is nothing in between, like 50% possible.

On the contrary, there are probabilities, because we don't know what White's last move was. Once the board is ...[text shortened]... board is oriented incorrectly; then you will have the right to ask for proof of en passant.[/b]

This discussion is hypothetical only. So there is not a conflict here. If either of us is right and the other is wrong doesn't really change anything. So this discussion is about amusement and amusement only.

Let's compare with a problem where a castling is involved. Here we have clear rules: If, with a retro-analysis, it shows that a castling is impossible, then castling cannot be a part of the solution.
Does this imply that e.p. must be the last move if it can be the last move, or does this imply that e.p. can't be the last move if there is another possibility of move?

About the probability: Is it really 50%-50% cabce that one or another of the two possibilites has occurred? Why not 30%-70% or any other combination? A pawn move with e.p. possibility is quite a rare occurrens, therefore an e.p. move has very low statistically frequency. So statistically the probability of an e.p. move in this position is quite low. Or not, we don't have any means to know if it were the one or the other event happened in the move before.

But I know this: The stipulation of the problem is "mate in zero moves", therefore it is mate already. Alas: No e.p. move.

The problem is a joke problem. There is no intention that it should be taken seriously. If the solution is to turn the board 180 degrees or let the player go from one side of the board to the other make it quite funny. So I settle with this. No proofs of any kind is really necessary.

And I find this thread rather amusing.