A rook/queen on the rank 4 can only occupy square a4 and not square 4. This applies to the switch h5/5 vice versa.
That's interesting; given that a rook is allowed to move sideways from 4 onto b4 and beyond, that means that a rook on 4 can threaten a rook on b4 without being attacked back. Is this intentional?
The squares 4 and 5 do not have a uniform color. The squares are each composed of both colors.
Strictly speaking, the colours on the squares are a representational convention and bear no real influence on the game; ‘a bishop can change colour’ is equivalent to saying a bishop can reach the whole board, or in other words all squares are effectively the same colour. But that's a minor quibble
En Bw
I assume you mean me? That's one correct letter out of four, with two more misplaced ;)
I don't think that the moves to a5 and b5 are legal since they are on the same line.
That's one of the few things which changes depending on the knight‐move definition; the definition you've chosen would indeed exclude both destinations, as a queen can reach both of those squares; but the more usual definitions H.G. first brought up (either two othrogonal steps in one direction and one at right angles, or (my preferred expression) one orthogonal and one diagonally outwards — in either order (or not…?) and for some suitable definition of ‘outwards’) would probably allow both moves. Equally the question of whether N h4–g6 is legal, and probably other similar moves, is implicated there. There may be some way of defining the knight move to include only a subset of the moves in question, but that's unltimately for Gerd to decide if he wants to look for (or someone else to contribute if they come up w/ sth).
That's interesting; given that a rook is allowed to move sideways from
4ontob4and beyond, that means that a rook on4can threaten a rook onb4without being attacked back. Is this intentional?Strictly speaking, the colours on the squares are a representational convention and bear no real influence on the game; ‘a bishop can change colour’ is equivalent to saying a bishop can reach the whole board, or in other words all squares are effectively the same colour. But that's a minor quibble
I assume you mean me? That's one correct letter out of four, with two more misplaced ;)
That's one of the few things which changes depending on the knight‐move definition; the definition you've chosen would indeed exclude both destinations, as a queen can reach both of those squares; but the more usual definitions H.G. first brought up (either two othrogonal steps in one direction and one at right angles, or (my preferred expression) one orthogonal and one diagonally outwards — in either order (or not…?) and for some suitable definition of ‘outwards’) would probably allow both moves. Equally the question of whether
N h4–g6is legal, and probably other similar moves, is implicated there. There may be some way of defining the knight move to include only a subset of the moves in question, but that's unltimately for Gerd to decide if he wants to look for (or someone else to contribute if they come up w/ sth).