PDA

View Full Version : Triple check



antichrist
02-09-2004, 07:56 PM
Is triple check possible? I can't work one out in my mind.

Alan Shore
02-09-2004, 08:19 PM
Is it possible to triple check, I have been thinking about and could not manage it.

You can.. and you can't. There's a wonderful story behind this about a rules bandit who exposed himself to a triple-check and won, as the rule then stated, 'you are in check if the king is attacked by one or two pieces'. His opponent placed him in a double (discovered) check with a knight move, also giving a discovered rook check. He then moved his Queen (which was pinned by a bishop) across the board to checkmate his opponent. Because he was attacked three times, by the letter of the rules, this did not constitute check, therefore he was awarded the win. (The rule was immediately changed after this by FIDE to one or more pieces).

Rhubarb
03-09-2004, 07:57 AM
Is triple check possible? I can't work one out in my mind.

Here's a hint, schit-for-brains, you're not welcome on this thread, and you're not welcome on any thread. You're so stupid you even have to ask why your obviously defamatory remarks were deleted by mods. You're checked by atheists; you're checked by agnostics; you're checked by believers.

Triple check, so FO.

PHAT
03-09-2004, 03:12 PM
Here's a hint, schit-for-brains, you're not welcome on this thread, and you're not welcome on any thread. You're so stupid you even have to ask why your obviously defamatory remarks were deleted by mods. You're checked by atheists; you're checked by agnostics; you're checked by believers.

Triple check, so FO. :lol:

antichrist
03-09-2004, 04:23 PM
Here's a hint, schit-for-brains, you're not welcome on this thread, and you're not welcome on any thread. You're so stupid you even have to ask why your obviously defamatory remarks were deleted by mods. You're checked by atheists; you're checked by agnostics; you're checked by believers.

Triple check, so FO.

this is too good to left in this thread, transferring to Non-chess

antichrist
03-09-2004, 04:50 PM
You can.. and you can't. There's a wonderful story behind this about a rules bandit who exposed himself to a triple-check and won, as the rule then stated, 'you are in check if the king is attacked by one or two pieces'. His opponent placed him in a double (discovered) check with a knight move, also giving a discovered rook check. He then moved his Queen (which was pinned by a bishop) across the board to checkmate his opponent. Because he was attacked three times, by the letter of the rules, this did not constitute check, therefore he was awarded the win. (The rule was immediately changed after this by FIDE to one or more pieces).

Amazing.

Rincewind
03-09-2004, 05:16 PM
Amazing.

Dion, you got some references on this. You have to admit, on the surface it sounds like urban legend material.

JGB
03-09-2004, 06:15 PM
I had always believed triple check was impossible? Ive got to head off and set up a few positions and check this out! Are you serious Bruce?? It sounds too good to be true! :P

Rincewind
03-09-2004, 06:28 PM
I had always believed triple check was impossible? Ive got to head off and set up a few positions and check this out! Are you serious Bruce?? It sounds too good to be true! :P

It is possible in the circumstance BD described. That is a player is in legitimate double check and then makes an illegal move to expose yet another check. However, it is not possible in normal legal play.

eclectic
03-09-2004, 06:45 PM
It is possible in the circumstance BD described. That is a player is in legitimate double check and then makes an illegal move to expose yet another check. However, it is not possible in normal legal play.

does inflicting a double check over the table plus offering an extra check under the table to ensure resignation count as a triple check?

:owned:

eclectic

Alan Shore
03-09-2004, 07:21 PM
Dion, you got some references on this. You have to admit, on the surface it sounds like urban legend material.

The only way to verify it would be to find a really old copy of the FIDE rules.. which I don't have. The info came from a reliable source though. I think there was another rule that had to be changed from some kind of crazy instance cropping up too but can't remember..the triple-check was the famous one.

Rincewind
03-09-2004, 08:44 PM
The only way to verify it would be to find a really old copy of the FIDE rules.. which I don't have. The info came from a reliable source though. I think there was another rule that had to be changed from some kind of crazy instance cropping up too but can't remember..the triple-check was the famous one.

Other forms of corroboration are possible. I thought perhaps you read it somewhere. The circumstances of the incident are also interesting, which country it occurred in, what level of competition, etc.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2004, 08:55 PM
Is triple check possible? I can't work one out in my mind.

It cannot happen from the starting position by any series of legal moves. In blitz it can occur after an illegal move goes unnoticed.

antichrist
05-09-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally Posted by Greg_Canfell
Here's a hint, schit-for-brains, you're not welcome on this thread, and you're not welcome on any thread. You're so stupid you even have to ask why your obviously defamatory remarks were deleted by mods. You're checked by atheists; you're checked by agnostics; you're checked by believers.

Triple check, so FO.
________________________________________________

A few months ago when discussing that touch move controversery you stated that the witness (myself) did not know the rules, I proved you wrong. You did not apologise - SINGLE CHECK!

Bruce was able to come up with a sensible reply to triple check question - DOUBLE CHECK!!

About 18 months ago when Lloyd Fell turned up with one of his customary chess problems to work out, Ed Agulto, George Xie and myself attacked it. Of course, understandably George put p-o-o on me "what do you know -- you only teach children". Well I was the only one to work it out. TRIPLE CHECK!!!

Now go and kick the dog and slap the missus instead!

Rhubarb
05-09-2004, 01:32 PM
A few months ago when discussing that touch move controversery you stated that the witness (myself) did not know the rules, I proved you wrong. You did not apologise - SINGLE CHECK!
What I actually wrote was that the witness "didn't appear to know what was going on". At the time, I didn't know you were the witness, nor did I know why your testimony was rejected by the arbiter, nor did I know antichrist = Peter Hanna.

I unreservedly apologise.

Had I known all of those things I would have written: "The testimony of the only witness was rejected by the arbiter because the witness is a known liar and troublemaker."


Bruce was able to come up with a sensible reply to triple check question - DOUBLE CHECK!! Relevance?


About 18 months ago when Lloyd Fell turned up with one of his customary chess problems to work out, Ed Agulto, George Xie and myself attacked it. Of course, understandably George put p-o-o on me "what do you know -- you only teach children". Well I was the only one to work it out. TRIPLE CHECK!!! Bully for you.


Now go and kick the dog and slap the missus instead! I suppose this comment is typical of you: truth is a casualty when trying to provoke a reaction. But sometimes it's not so clear in your posts that what you are saying is completely untrue. The main reason I had a go at you was kind of a delayed reaction to your truly vile and groundless defaming of my friend Jase (I was one of the people who saw it before it was deleted).

That you regularly post off-topic and still haven't learnt out how to use the quote tags are just minor irritations in comparison.

Paul S
05-09-2004, 08:39 PM
The main reason I had a go at you was kind of a delayed reaction to your truly vile and groundless defaming of my friend Jase (I was one of the people who saw it before it was deleted).


I saw it too! I had a good laugh when I read it, due to the sheer absurdity of the content of the post. However, you are correct, Greg, in that it was defamatory to Jason (and the moderators had no choice but to delete that part of Peter's post).

Greg, you are incorrect when you say that Antichrist has been triple checked on this forum. He has in fact been triple checkmated!

First checkmate was by Doeberl Cup loyalists (although to be fair to Peter some of the attacks against Peter from anonymous trolls/stirrers on this issue in 2002 were unfair). Second checkmate has been from those who believe in the existence of a God. Third checkmate has been from people who want a sensible resolution/outcome to the Israel versus Palestine issue.

To plagiarise the hit song "Give It Up" by KC and the Sunshine Band (sing to the tune of this song)................"Give It Up, Peter Give it Up, Give It Up, Peter Give it Up, Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-na-na-na-na, Peter Give it up, Give It Up, Peter Give It Up, Give It Up, Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-na-na-na-na.........."

PHAT
05-09-2004, 09:41 PM
truly vile and groundless defaming of my friend Jase (I was one of the people who saw it before it was deleted).


Hmmm. I think I saw it too - might have been too stewed at the time to recall the exact details. I took it as a blokey jokey piece of bollocks. But if others think it was over the line, I must be wrong.

antichrist
06-09-2004, 02:50 PM
Greg Canfell:
I suppose this comment is typical of you: truth is a casualty when trying to provoke a reaction. But sometimes it's not so clear in your posts that what you are saying is completely untrue. The main reason I had a go at you was kind of a delayed reaction to your truly vile and groundless defaming of my friend Jase (I was one of the people who saw it before it was deleted).

Reply:
If it was not to be taken the wrong way I would say this is all a-r-s-e up! At the original posting about 2 years ago when JL was overseas I was the only one to call it unfair and defend him. This in spite of him putting p-o-o-p on me re SEC.

In the recent post (since deleted) I pointed this out how there was no thanks (which I did not expect) and made a completely facetious joke as to why he may not have. As I pointed out later, and I expected people to read between the lines, that probably transgender toilets don't even exist. But some people are slow and didn't realise my humour. This also occurred at time of original posting, and they went on to have a go at me which I did not answer back to tell them how slow they were.

I deleted my own posting on this before KB took action. I advised PaulS to delete his as people could put two and two together and I sent KB a private message to delete PaulS posting for this reason, which he did before Paul could.

KB can confirm this. There may have been 2 posts, I cannot completely recall sequence of events.

For better or worse I have a sense of humour that I love. Many years ago I was almost stabbed three times when my loved one took a joke the wrong way.

Anything but a dull life, because there is no ruddy heaven up there with 72 Muslim virgins waiting.

Thanks for the explanation.

Paul S
06-09-2004, 07:13 PM
I deleted my own posting on this before KB took action. I advised PaulS to delete his as people could put two and two together and I sent KB a private message to delete PaulS posting for this reason, which he did before Paul could.


Peter's "concern" is bizzare! :rolleyes: In fact, Peter's post was NOT deleted - only part of it was (and that part was deleted by a Forum Admin and not Peter).

I recall seeing the absurd part of Peter's post (where he made some bizzare insinuations about Jason Lyons) and (for a bit of a laugh) I later suggested that the Forum Admins (in particular Kevin) re-instate that part of Peter's post that was deleted (because of the bizzare nature of Peter's comments) as they gave me a good laugh.

I may have unintentionally given "one or two clues too many" in my "request" (post) to re-instate that part of Peter's post, which is probably why (presumably) Kevin deleted it.

Yes, I got a PM (in fact two PMs) from Antichrist. The first one advised me to delete my post (which by the time I read it one of the Admins had already done this) and the second said something like "no hard feelings - regards 666". As a result of this second PM I deleted my response to his post in the Non-Chess section about asking Bill for a Triple Moron Title (Peter had asked Bill to bestow upon him a "Triple Moron" title, to which I agreed) and informed Peter via PM that I had done this.

I subsequently received a third PM from Antichrist expressing "concern" about Jason's reputation. I found this rather strange, in light of the amusing (but defamatory) stuff he had originally posted (which Kevin had subsequently deleted), but then again, many things about Peter's posts on this forum are "a bit unusual".



KB can confirm this. There may have been 2 posts, I cannot completely recall sequence of events.


I'll let Kevin explain! Will be interesting to see what he says!

Trent Parker
07-09-2004, 12:58 AM
For better or worse I have a sense of humour that I love. Many years ago I was almost stabbed three times when my loved one took a joke the wrong way.


:lol: sorry i shouldn't laugh.......
They say laughter could help u live longer.........
U sure your type of humour is healthy??? :D

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2004, 03:13 AM
antichrist's original post was rather short and ambiguously worded and was capable of all kinds of readings, some of them defamatory, even though I doubt that was intended. I think I misread it when it first appeared - which still justifies deleting it because in law it is not what you say but how a reasonable person might read it.

It is best to leave this kind of stuff off the BB entirely even if referring to it only to say that you "defended" someone against a claim.

antichrist
07-09-2004, 05:31 PM
antichrist's original post was rather short and ambiguously worded and was capable of all kinds of readings, some of them defamatory, even though I doubt that was intended. I think I misread it when it first appeared - which still justifies deleting it because in law it is not what you say but how a reasonable person might read it.

It is best to leave this kind of stuff off the BB entirely even if referring to it only to say that you "defended" someone against a claim.

Reply: that is the second time a combo of mine has baffled you, sometimes my games are just as pregnant.

Can you hear that chorus of mynor birds never with anything original but only jumping up and down and yelling.

antichrist
07-09-2004, 05:33 PM
mistaken posting

antichrist
07-09-2004, 05:38 PM
PaulS
To plagiarise the hit song "Give It Up" by KC and the Sunshine Band (sing to the tune of this song)................"Give It Up, Peter Give it Up, Give It Up, Peter Give it Up, Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-na-na-na-na, Peter Give it up, Give It Up, Peter Give It Up, Give It Up, Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-Han-na-na-na-na-na.........."

Reply: I should tell you in case no one does. You embarrass people when you jump on their bandwagon attacking me. The reasons you give are different to theirs and as happened on other occasions they do not agree with you. No one of substance needs a galah repeating everything they say backing them up. Greg may have now changed his mind (???) and you are left like a childish idiot.

antichrist
07-09-2004, 05:40 PM
:lol: sorry i shouldn't laugh.......
They say laughter could help u live longer.........
U sure your type of humour is healthy??? :D

I have told some in the chess scene the details of such and they say serve me right. But also having a good laugh as it was quite funny.