![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
|
If the knight can never move, how is king side castling possible? :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.61.50.164 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Can a player escape checkmate by blocking or capturing the attacking piece(s) with a non-king piece (provided that that piece's move meets the monochromatic restriction)? Emurphy42 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing that most reading this find the idea of monochromatic chess trivial and/or ridiculous.
I'd just point out that Smulyan was trying to make a popular science out of retrograde analysis, wherein one reconstructs a chess position by determining the moves that created it. This has some -- limited -- value in conventional chess problems.
I believe that the idea originated in a book of his which had none other than Sherlock Holmes continually dropping in on an 1890s scene with a chessboard, and enerringly telling everyone just who had played just what moves.
However, by assuming that a given game was "monochromatic," Smulyan was able to backtrack an analysis to a far earlier point in time than one would think possible. So, one character or the other would confess (with just twelve pieces remaining on the board) that they had been making wild and reckless moves, but at no point had anyone moved from a white square to a black one or vice-versa. This enabled Holmes to state than "Ah! Then obviously you, Sir Herbie, began as White with the Queen's Bishop's Pawn, after which Colonel Dorkster brought out his kingside knight* . . . ," something like that. And, of course, Holmes had an explanation for everything.
It was all in fun!
(Had to log in again to get the sig correct.) WHPratt (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The pawn on g3 can be white, it could have started on h2 and captured a piece on g3 VanZa39 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)