Hacker News Reader

Comment by t0mbstone | Hacker News Reader

A poorly phrased question that lacks context != cleverness

The "puzzle" relies on an obscure situation which isn't even a rule. You might as well claim that the kings can checkmate each other, or that the rook can spontaneously transform into a queen.

HEY GUYS CHECK OUT THIS FAKE PUZZLE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT CHESS RULES FOR IT TO WORK

View on HN

Huh? The solution doesn't require you to "IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT CHESS RULES". I can't speak for all casual players but this is a rule that seems technically possible but just never executed because it's hard to conceive a situation in which it would ever be used in practice. For those of us who don't know this specific rule, there's no excuse for us not thinking-outside-of-the-box...and learning of the "solution" is enjoyable.

Life is full of rules in which the exception was never addressed or outlawed because the exception was never even considered. [Insert Kobayashi Maru trope here]

Not really, it's an illegal move which makes it a puzzle from a different game of chess.

Clickbaity title.

It's not a rule now. This move was legal at the time.

You can reasonably object that you shouldn't be expected to know that history, but that makes it quite different from "rook can spontaneously transform into a queen" and similar.

I think you're just disappointed because you wanted to solve a chess problem. I liked the article because I read it as a story to be enjoyed rather than a problem to be solved.

Yeah I would be disappointed too if, for example, I'm asked to find out how to avoid a clear checkmate and I spend a lot of time thinking and fail, and then I'm told "you flip the board over and run away".

It doesn't take long to go through all of the permutations in your head and figure out that it's something really odd, but this line in the second paragraph should have let every reader know that the solution was gimmicky: "If I told you that the solution is a VERY unusual move that is no longer strictly within the bounds of the rules of the game then that might help you a little bit." From then on, I read the story instead of trying to solve the problem.

He said at the very beginning of the article that it is no longer a legal move. I don't know why you are surprised to find out that the move isn't legal now. But it has nothing to do with "flipping over the board". It's a perfectly reasonable seeming move.

Marketing problem-solving and delivering history is linkbait, and I dislike bait-and-switch equally among journalism and retail. It's deceptive and the article doesn't deserve the clicks it's getting.

Name it "An interesting historical chess rule" and let the chips fall where they may. (I wouldn't have clicked that FWIW)

I didn't click it myself until it got a lot of votes, and now I'm glad I did. It's not hard to figure out why it would be relevant to the audience here. Applying the lesson in a different context might be difficult though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com