Dear Paralogical, I saw your video & subscribe to your channel. I've been around Jerry's garden like 15 years now. In a few and rare occasions he has shared videos from other people, I guess he has never take a bait. Kudos for you.

You have also captured me with your beautiful video. Jerry seemed also enchanted by it. Now you need to find the rarer move 😂

went and watched the video and i am already subbed!!

What if the opponents bishops were arranged in a similar order. Would you need to included the extended notation for the specific locations of the bishops in the capture?

@@longslongmcdong No because the move order is deterministic, white goes first, then black, then it repeats forever. If the move is an odd number, it's white's bishop. Otherwise, it's black's.

nah. games against computer don't count.

This video was made by DDBCC Georg, who is an outlier and should not be counted

I guess the rules use a greedy notation approach, rather than a lazy one.

That's an interesting question!

good question...

The notation for what moves where always comes first. The notation for check and checkmate are just additional information; they're never used for disambiguation.

As Paralogical discussed in their video, this move necessitates a discovery as no new squares are ever attacked by the bishop. So it's one of the (if not the only?) moves that entails a discovery

⁠@@barmanitanthe one without a capture is the one requiring a discover checkmate

Discovery doesn't add to the notation though, so by the original video's parameters that doesn't make it any more rare :(

​​​@@barmanitanthis isn't true, you're thinking about the non-capture version of this move. Here's a position I made up where a double disambiguated bishop capture checkmate isn't a discovery B3B3/8/2p5/8/B5N1/8/8/5K1k w - - 0 1 Edit: and here's a silly pgn to prove that the aforementioned position is legally reachable 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 c6 3. dxc6 bxc6 4. a4 Na6 5. Bxa6 Qxd2+ 6. Qxd2 Nf6 7. Qg5 h5 8. Qxf6 Rb8 9. Qxg7 Rb7 10. Bxb7 a5 11. Qxh8 Bf5 12. Qxh5 Bh6 13. Qxf5 Bg5 14. Qxa5 f6 15. Qxg5 Kf7 16. Qxf6+ exf6 17. Bg5 fxg5 18. h4 gxh4 19. Rxh4 Kg6 20. a5 Kg5 21. a6 Kxh4 22. a7 Kg4 23. a8=B Kf4 24. Ra4+ Ke5 25. Re4+ Kxe4 26. b4 Kd4 27. g4 Kc4 28. g5 Kxb4 29. Nc3 Kxc3 30. g6 Kxc2 31. f4 Kd3 32. g7 Ke4 33. g8=B Kxf4 34. Bb3 Kg4 35. Ba4 Kh4 36. Bc8 Kg3 37. Bd7 Kh2 38. Be8 Kh1 39. Nf3 Kg2 40. Ne5 Kh1 41. Ng4 Kg1 42. Ke2 Kg2 43. Ke1 Kh1 44. Nf6 Kg2 45. Ke2 Kg1 46. Ke1 Kh2 47. Kf2 Kh1 48. Kf1 Kh2 49. Ng4+ Kh1 50. Ba8xc6# 1-0 Edit 2: btw, non-castle king checkmates also entail a discovery.

In the original video, the creator actually discusses whether a doubly disambiguated bishop NON capture check mate would be rarer because that would be forced to be a discovered attack.

or make it a stalemate instead of a checkmate lol

@@AgentSmith911 i wonder how this checkmate would be "more common" than the one in this video xD

@@homerp.hendelbergenheinzel6649 for one thing, because all knights can reach every square on the board, the 2x disambiguated knight checkmate only needs one underpromotion, when the bishop one needs at least two.

@@homerp.hendelbergenheinzel6649 Stalemate doesn't effect the notation. Checkmate does.

I would assume it's impossible? Bc the king can be in a straight line with two of the bishops (for either to reveal a discovery), but never the third (I think)

It works by chess notation rules! Even the computer labeled it with the double disambiguation. It's legit.

​@barmanitan I think there's an arrangement where the capturing bishop itself delivers the checkmate, meaning any of the bishops could have made the move. But, imo this is still fair game.

@@SJNaka101 Oh right I think I was getting mixed up with the non-capture double disambiguated bishop checkmate (where it indeed has to be a discovery). With the capture yes I agree it's possible, but finicky

I agree that all three bishop moves must result in checkmate (three different discovered checks for example) to justify that rare notation. If only one bishop move is mate, then the # in the notation removes any ambiguity, and rank and file notation is not required. This means that both this game and the Paralogical video sample of the doubly disambiguated bishop mate were not in fact such a move. Compare many common moves: If one rook can move to a square but the other rook cannot only because another piece is in the way, we don't add disambiguating characters to the rook move notation

There is a fastest theoretical stalemate as far as I know

@@thedrumify Yeah, but that one requires cooperation from both sides. I'm assuming the opponent means with an opponent trying to win the game.

​@thedrumify how do they know it's the optimal fastest stalemate? No way they've explored or calculated every possible variation or line

👍

I'm pretty sure emulating paralogical's style was the whole point

@@blackeyefly Yep

It all makes sense now

Technically yes, but chess notation is just a system with rules for disambiguation. As you can see, the computer itself gave the double disambiguated notation simply because that's how notation rules work. If there's two pieces that could make the move, you disambiguate with preference to file, if there's 2 pieces on the same file that could make the same move then you display rank, and if there's a piece on the same rank and a piece on the same file then you get the double disambiguation. Check and checkmate are just sort of added at the end and not part of the equation

Thanks for clarifying :)

Lol is right. Are you drunk?

Edit: I commented before watching!

here is what i came up was able to come up with 8/8/4Q3/4B3/3p4/3P3R/QB2kBQ1/2K4R w - - 0 1