Remix.run Logo
Chess Invariants(muratbuffalo.blogspot.com)
38 points by ingve 4 hours ago | 25 comments
yewenjie 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Chess is a lot trickier than it looks. It has so many rules: castling, en passant, pawn promotion, pinning, the discovered check, and the deadlock case of stalemate.

Nit: Pinning and the discovered check are not really rules, but rather names of tactics.

JohnKemeny 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, if a piece is pinned it's illegal to move it.

Rule 3.9.2: No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unlike en-passant and castling, pinning and discovered checks are consequences of lower-level rules.

At the "Is this move legal?" level, they don't need unique rules of its own if the lower-level rules are specified correctly.

JohnKemeny 2 hours ago | parent [-]

3.9.2: no piece can be moved if that exposes or leaves its own king in check.

333c 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's a consequence of not being allowed to put yourself in check (by any means).

anamexis 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

The only way to put yourself in check is by moving.

333c 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

[delayed]

gobdovan 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You can also pin a pawn to a queen, but the pawn can still legally move.

HiroProtagonist an hour ago | parent [-]

You're both right, depending on whether you mean relative pin vs absolute pin.

munchler 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The point is that, logically, the first part of that rule (“expose the king”) is implied by the second part (“leave that king”), so the first part is redundant. You could simplify the rule to:

No piece can be moved that will leave the king of the same color in check.

emil-lp 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

You should submit it to FIDE.

saberience 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Pinning isn’t a rule, it’s just something that arises from other rules.

Also, pinning can happen with pieces that don’t include a king, which means you can just move out of the pin and expose whatever other piece.

It’s just a chess tactic, not a rule. It’s like saying a chess skewer is a rule too.

juujian 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And discovered check means that it is not sufficient to check the position of the piece you have moved, you also need to check the position of other pieces to see whether there is a new check.

NicoHartmann 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't wait to show this to my manager next time he asks why it's taking three weeks to build a simple CRUD app.

"Look, if this guys TLA+ logic struggles to model a 1,500-year-old game without crying over a French pawn-capture rule, you can't expect me to integrate Stripe billing without a few state invariant violations."

epolanski an hour ago | parent [-]

Payments have a gargantuan amount of possible transitions and invariants that are far from trivial to encode.

ferd an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shameless plug: a code walkthru modeling the rules of chess, ment as an exercise/teaching functional programming (in Clojure):

https://neuroning.com/boardgames-exercise/notebooks/walkthro...

The implementation makes it really easy to add new piece types or rules. For example, here's the full logic for rooks (sans castling):

  (defn expand-pmove-for-rook [pmove]
    (->> pmove
      (expand-pmove-dirs [↑ ↓ ← →])
      (pmoves-discard #(or (pmove-on-same-player-piece? %)
                           (pmove-changed-direction? %)))
      (map pmoves-finish-capturing-opponent-piece)
      (pmoves-finish-and-continue))))
duesabati an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

While I think everything written in this post is correct, what really is starting bothering me is this over-focus/attention on data even when what you want to express is behavior, let me explain:

The post talks about "transition invariants" that should be somehow different from "state invariants" yet it describe them as:

> These are predicates over a <<state, next-state>> pair ...

i.e. it still is about state, but I find it much more useful to focus on behavior so instead of thinking about how state transition you focus on what the program is allowed to perform, regardless of the underlying data structure.

What I mean is that I'd like the code to tell me why a certain piece can't do such move instead of why it cannot transition it's position to another position and basically dumping its state in my head and there I have to execute the program myself.

rauljara an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anyone know what language is being used in the blogpost?

nonethewiser an hour ago | parent [-]

TLA+ i think

unprovable 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you like this, you're probably gonna like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessboard_complex

srean an hour ago | parent [-]

This is delightful. Thanks.

vintermann 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That king promotion rule sounds like it made the game more fun.

phoe-krk an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Screenshots of code? In 2026?...

efavdb an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One king per color?

fnord77 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

side question, which CS class(es) teach about invariants?