From: Adam Atkinson MISTRAL CO UK> Date: 9 oct 1995 Subject: Re: King in check Pieter Stouten writes: >Is there a position possible in chess where one cannot make any moves at >all not even moves that would put one's own king in check? >If so, then the concept of having no moves at all is different from >stalemate. If not, then the concept of having no possible (legal or >illegal, NOT impossible) moves does not exist in chess. In either case, >stalemate would not be equal to having no moves at all. Or is this >stalelogic? Um. I repeat, "having no moves at all" and "stalemate" are exactly the same thing. Stalemate positions are DEFINED as being those in which the person whose turn it is to play cannot move. I really don't see what you are talking about. Moving so as to place your own king in check is illegal. It can not be done (in chess). It is not a move. Therefore it is not available as a move. Even if the king COULD move into check, there would be _many_ fewer stalemate positions in chess but I'm sure there'd still be plenty. I admit that right here and now I can't produce one, but again the idea would be to stick the King in the corner somewhere surrounded by his own pieces and make sure none of the other pieces had any moves either. Since you can have multiple pawns on the same file, and enemy pawns facing each other are blocked, I should think it's easy enough to invent a stalemate position where allowing kings to move into check (or other pieces to discover checks on the king) would make no difference as no such moves would be possible anyway. How about... ........ .....k.. ........ ........ p.p..... P.Pp.... RB.P.... KNB..... Where the two lower case p's are black (and the lower case k is the Black king, who has to be there somewhere). Not one of white's pieces has a move, and even if it WERE permitted to put yourself into check (which it isn't) White still wouldn't have any moves. (We'll assume that White declined to make an en passant capture at some earlier move...) -- -- Adam Atkinson - ghira mistral co uk / etlaman etlxdmx ericsson se We know Jesus must have been Italian for three reasons - he lived at home until he was 30, he thought his mother was a virgin and she thought he was God.