Timeline for Maximum number of pieces on board in dead position
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 12, 2017 at 8:26 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| S Oct 12, 2017 at 8:26 | history | suggested | Laska | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
remove the "type" terminology
|
| Oct 12, 2017 at 7:01 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 12, 2017 at 8:26 | |||||
| Oct 11, 2017 at 9:32 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 80 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2017 at 15:34 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2017 at 15:15 | vote | accept | supercat | ||
| Dec 14, 2023 at 15:48 | |||||
| Sep 27, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2017 at 8:02 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 510 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 17:13 | comment | added | D M | @supercat I missed that it says "either". OK. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 17:12 | comment | added | supercat | @OlivierPucher: It might be helpful to add annotations showing how things would play out until the repeat. I got tripped up because your previous position had black to play, so I was looking for Black to do likewise on the last one. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 17:10 | comment | added | supercat | @DM: There are three questions in one, which might or might not all have the same best answer. A situation where the player on move would have no legal move that didn't force stalemate would be a valid answer for the first. A situation where two players repeat the same sequence of four positions endlessly would qualify for any of them, since in the absence of a rule about draws by repetition, that sequence could be played arbitrarily many times, and in the presence of such a rule even the starting position would eventually lead to a draw by repetition if the game didn't by other means first. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 16:30 | comment | added | D M | I think some of these violate the terms of the question: "It would be possible to play an arbitrary number of legal moves" and "No legal sequence of legal moves would produce checkmate or stalemate". | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 13:58 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 13:53 | comment | added | supercat | What's happened to the 26 position? It seems to have become a non-solution since White is checkmated. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 13:50 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 13:42 | comment | added | supercat | The trick for 24 is fine. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 13:39 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 10:29 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | Wow, it seems the 26 is even legal, black a-pawn captures twice to promote on a1 or c1, black d-pawn captures once, accounts for all white's missing pieces. The g-pawn may have promoted on g1 and got there because white's g-pawn captured twice on its way to g8, which happens to be white. Nice :-) | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 10:21 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | I like the trick for this 24! | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 10:05 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 9:56 | comment | added | Evargalo | Oh, you're right of course. | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 9:55 | comment | added | AakashM | Your '24' needs promoted units too (Black has two black-square bishops) | |
| Sep 25, 2017 at 9:52 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 8:36 | history | edited | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 211 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2017 at 8:18 | history | answered | Evargalo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |