Talk:Joke chess problem

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I just composed this article, in response to an reference to joke chess problem on the grotesque (chess) page. If anyone wants to improve the formatting or the introduction, or add more examples, please do so! 71.245.237.11 02:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad that somebody started this! Your examples are great, but I must admit that I had something a bit different in mind when I made that reference in the grotesque article: the sort of problem which doesn't so much exploit ambiguities in the rules as radically rewrite them; [1] is an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about (though I probably wouldn't use this example in the article since I don't know how to explain away the orthodox solution 1.Qf4+ Kd5 2.Qd4#). When such problems are published, they usually carry the stipulation "Joke" as well as the "mate in two" or whatever (not to do this would be unfair to the solver). Maybe I'll get round to adding some examples of this sort of thing one day; if anybody else wants to do it in the meantime, that'd be great, of course. --Camembert 15:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't white just pawn to a8 and promote? ZoFreX 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just pointed out to me that this wouldn't work. Apologies for my tiredness :( ZoFreX 12:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I miss something, the black Pawn at D5 breaks this puzzle, as black can move it instead of their King and survive for at least 5 moves. Is the Pawn a mistake? Zerris (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an error to me too. I've asked the editor who added it. Bubba73 (talk), 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does Black survive for 5 moves? Even with the pawn on d5 is looks like it's over in three. Perhaps I have missed something but cannot see what. 1. e7 d4 2. e8(R)+ Kd3 3. O-O-O mate or 2...Kxf3 3. O-O mate. SunCreator (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the position is correct. I got to thinking that it would be the strange castling that would win, but it isn't but in that one line. Bubba73 (talk), 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, wouldn't the puzzle be a better illustration if we deleted the black pawn at D5? Without it, white wins in three by the O-O-O-O move. With it, white wins in three, but depending on what black does, it can be via the O-O, O-O-O, or O-O-O-O move. So it doesn't always illustrate the funny castling. (Or maybe that's the point: it's a triple-castling fork?)

Also, FWIW, I always assumed that the reason they chose the O-O and O-O-O symbols was because the rook moved two or three spaces, respectively, in these castlings. In that case, the Krabbé castling should be written as O-O-O-O-O-O ! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I play lots of chess and i do like jokes but i don't see anything funny in all these problems. Can we consider renaming the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.113.111 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troll? Or maybe you just fail at detecting humor. It's pretty clearly explained in the article, and regardless, you don't exactly see septupled pawns every day, do you? Eebster the Great (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some years ago, an article in Chess Life (probably by Krabbe) demonstrated that pawns really could be sextupled on a rook file, but just barely. All the available black pieces and pawns had to be captured by the white pawns, and almost all of the available white pieces had to be sacrificed to bring the black pawns into place for their capture. Of no practical use whhatever, but really amazing! WHPratt (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Krabbe designated the long-range castling as O-O-O-O-O-O. Think about it. The king always moves two squares, so the O in O-O and O-O-O refers to the length of the rook's move. I can't see any justification for O-O-O-O other than that it's longer than standard castling. (This is admittedly unofficial, but nitpicking is in the spirit of this article, right? WHPratt (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he might have used 0-0-0-0 originally, I'm not sure. When the notation started, it was 0-0l and 0-0r. It became 0-0 and 0-0-0 a few years later. It doesn't really matter - it was a joke and is no longer a legal move. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The rules of chess say about castling: "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original square two squares towards the rook on its original square, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just crossed." http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article They do not say that the king and rook have to be one the "same" rank, they say they have to be on the "first" rank, and as far as I know they have said that for a long time. I suggest that the story that FIDE changed the rules after this problem was proposed is a canard. 72.179.53.2 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Eric[reply]

If they are both on the first rank then they are on the same rank. And, no, it is true about them changing the rules as a result - see old rulebooks. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody cite a source of the chess legend about a composer creating a problem, where white pawn promotes to a black knight? Thanks. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The position appears in R. Smullyan's The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes, though in the book Holmes says that it occurred in an actual game! 213.249.135.36 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"According to chess legend, a composer stipulated "White mates in one move." It appears to be impossible, but the solution is for White to promote to a black rook on b8, thus depriving the black king of his only escape square. "

If White promotes to a black rook, there is no mate in one, as the new rook can intercept the check. That's why the original problem specified a knight, which would be useless in defending against the checkmate. (And if White promotes to any white piece -- as he's actuyally required to do -- the black king can capture it and hold out for at least one more move.)WHPratt (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it back to knight. Your argument is correct. Or rather, your argument is correct, if we assume that when white promotes his pawn to a black piece, then black -- in his very next move -- is entitled to move that new black piece. This seems a reasonable assumption, but since the premise is so absurd, one could imagine arguments to the contrary. (E.g., one might argue that the rules of chess don't allow the same piece to be moved by white and then immediately by black, or one might argue that the new black piece is still under the control of the white player, or something like that.) Personally, I find the Mate-in-1 puzzle a bit silly, while I find Tim Krabbé's puzzle brilliant and elegant! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a great admirer of Krabbé's site, but it's a bit ridiculous that all the examples on this page come from there. Doesn't any else have any other joke problems they'd like to share? 213.249.135.36 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, White has a way to loose the game: in fact, a player can always resign, loosing immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.218.189 (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other ideas for offbeat interpretations that have been used by other composers:

• Promoting a pawn to a pawn (i.e. "dummy pawn promotion"). This has some historical precedent, since this was allowed under the 1862 British Chess Association rules)
• Promoting a pawn to a rook of the opponent's colour(!) then having the opponent castle with it.
• Taking advantage of a previous FIDE law that stated "the king is in check if it is attacked by one or two pieces" (i.e. Bosma chess)
• Odds-game castling

Hopefully we can add some of these examples to the article. Two good sources of joke problems, by the way, are Burt Hochberg's Chess Braintwisters (also published as Outrageous Chess Problems) and Bedrich Formanek's Sachove Zarty: Chess Jokes.Edderiofer (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the third, see this thread on the English Chess Forum. Double sharp (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]