........
...Q....
........
........
.....Q..
........
........
Q..B..Q.
Q.......
........
........
........
..QQB..Q
........
........
........
Python script: https://gist.github.com/dllu/698d5f71b2b9735c5c462ddf4a2f6fc...
Here's how it works:
0. precompute the attack patterns of each possible queen/bishop location as a bitmask, stored as an integer
1. generate candidate solutions, allowing attack rays to pass through other pieces, by brute forcing the positions of the 5 pieces and taking the bitwise OR of their attacks
2. out of the candidate solutions, check which ones are actually valid taking into account occlusion. Actually, you only need to check if the queen's horizontal attack is blocked by the bishop, as queens cannot block each other (the blocking queen herself has the same attacks so they effectively pass through each other).
........
Q..B..Q.
........
........
.......Q
........
........
...Q....
That last word should be "check". not "checkmate". A king next to an unprotected queen will be in check but not checkmate as it can capture the queen.
A real shame, this totally ruined the puzzle for me as it seemed so unlikely that all five Black pieces would be mutually protected. I should have forced myself to ignore the faulty clause and try to solve without it. The bad clause is also completely unnecessary - one of those cases where deleting text (or code!) is an improvement with no downside!
The key was realizing the proximal spaces next to the placed queen are the most important to cover. Forget about trying to have a long reach, it comes naturally.
I think this is a bit ambiguous and, strictly speaking, wrong for the solution as given.
In particular, this asks for the king to be in check _mate_. Does this require all black pieces to defend each other? Otherwise, white king on the board would not be in checkmate if you place it next to a queen and can immediately capture.
From the solution, you can see it's not a checkmate requirement, just a check requirement.
My friend code on BadukPop is EGVNY if anyone wants to play together!
In fact, there isn’t really a need for two colors. Just color the squares that are threatened by the pieces and leave the rest blank. The meaning will be obvious.
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . Q
. . B . . . . .
. . . . . Q . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . Q . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. Q . . . . . . . B . . . . . .
. . . . . . Q .
. . . B . . . .
Q . . . . . . .
. . . . . B . .
. . Q . . . . .
. . . . . . . B
. . . . Q . . .Should maybe update the instructions to clarify that the dark-squared bishop is not constrained to dark squares.
sorry, "The task is to place four black queens and one black bishop on the chessboard" is not at all ambiguous.
where did you read "dark-squared"?
Also a click on a square could auto place a queen and a second click would swap to the bishop. Every click could auto-check.
A separate discovery mode could start blocking out the squares visually as you place pieces. For a lot of people, that would be easier than the mental representation.
> In other words, after arranging the five black pieces, it must be impossible to place the white king anywhere without it being in checkmate.
These two sentences mean very different things in the normal rules of chess. And if you replace the word “checkmate” with the word “check” in the second sentence it still doesn’t mean the same thing as the first sentence.
The first sentence implies that all the pieces must be defended.
Edit: Eh, I guess it depends on how you view the word “attack” since all the pieces are the same colour.