... calmly

Was just about to ask too...

This is like when I was a kid and I told my parents "Yes, I did my homework, I pumice!" instead of promise

POMMES

Holy Bishops En Passant!

​@@pythagmathcatpawns are obviously pieces, I have never understood why he always have to clarify pawns as pieces. Pawns are by definition a piece in Chess

​@@Jacobhart34521 In play (and chess theory) the term is traditionally used to exclude pawns, with the pieces divided in 3 groups - the major pieces (queen, rooks) the minor pieces (bishops, knights) and the king. This is one of 3 different definitions used in different chess context: 1) the physical pieces of the set, including everything 2) the definition used above 3) when talking about "winning/losing/sacrificing a piece" only the bishops and knights are included - by tradition you specify rooks, queens and pawns there. So really he clarify pawns because he's a bit of a stickler for tradition - and likely also because it's a bit funny

@@Jacobhart34521 i'm a chess anarchist so i don't believe in tradition, so ignoring chess ""theory"" and other nerd talk like that, separating pieces and pawns is really useful for constructing the challenges since including pawns can make a challenge either too difficult or too trivial

@@Jacobhart34521 | Pawns promote, other material does not. That was his reasoning.

@@vegetalss4 ok having piece only include bishops and knights is really weird, at that point you might as well name the exact piece in question

its pridemons

I didn't realize he stopped there for a few seconds

he took 40 seconds to make that bishop move

That move actually would've made more sense if Simp was the one making that move. Since moving his Rook back allows him to move it further next time

When?

@@mauijttewaal whenever he post this idea on the discord, because Simp exclusively takes challenge ideas from there

That blunders a viewer.

Yeah that one definitely sounded sinister lol

Im a maths undergrad. You didn't invite me to your meeting, and I disagree. If the person stating the challenge doesn't like the Euclidean distance they can say so. Why change the default? The video we just watched was arguably more interesting because of it.

True. From what I hear there's like 50 shades of gray. I think they made a documentary about that

InterCostal Bishop Missile!

1,2,3,4,6,7 that's seven spaces (remember he can't count to 5)

People are making fake videos of celebrities and politicians, so hopefully that does enough to help us spot “deepfakes”.

its actually an option when uploading a video set by the creator

@@reminderIknows funny that he set it then

just add { if(last_opponent_move==queen_blunder) x++; }

Input anything when there is a Queen blunder, after 5 of those it tells you that you can take queen

you don't know anything, so don't even try

Is she living with her boyfriend?

maidenless

don't worry most kings win if they manage to live past their queen's death, you just have to survive maideless for a few turn before promoting

"That sounds impossible. But I'm not a coward" - Chess Simp before losing that game.

I disagree

he should do it in manhattan distance

Yes. No, I don’t remember what it is from.

An anime... she's a little girl with the magical power of telling lies everyone believes... so she's in high school... despite being ~8 year old and not being able to understand her schoolwork, lol. Too bad I can't remember the name of it. If you're wondering, the boy staring at her from the doorway is her brother.

Anime. The name is "Engaged to the Unidentified" or something like that

Too

@@rishabhaagarwal-cv5rd I solemly square i did that on purpose.

​@@Wanaskiwin🤨

Wdym ? It moved sqrt(2)

@@poochycosme No, it didn't. The King moved one square.

@@xCorvus7xsqrt(1^2+1^2)=sqrt(2) so unless you aren't talking about euclidean distance, it moved sqrt(2) squares

@@poochycosme Why would anyone apply Euclidean distance to a chessboard? Is the chessboard a Euclidean space? There are no units on there but the squares into which it is divided and which themselves are not measured within the scope of the space on the chessboard because they are the fundamental building blocks of that space. All the rules of the game only deal in whole square distances. The King can move one square in each direction, of which there are eight. Casting movements on a chessboard into a Euclidean metric is completely pointless and leads to absurd results, when the actual numerical values are of interest.

The square works perfectly fine as a unit and if you are watching something like competitive chess, that makes sense, none of the rules have anything to do with euclidean distance but the point of this channel is to add external rules, like having to make each move get closer to the enemy king and counting the distance for something like that in euclidean distance makes sense to me, although it doesn't have to be the case but imagine this situation with the challenge I mentioned earlier : the enemy king is on a square and your queen is 2 squares down and 1 square to the right from the king and you move her 1 square to the left, putting the king in check, that's not going closer to the king ? That sounds weird to me personally but I'm not saying that what you're saying doesn't make sense either though Also, randomly saying 15 decimals from sqrt(2) in the middle of the game is kinda funny to me

Yeah honestly there's no need for the square root nonsense. I've never heard anybody say that sort of thing before Simp though they could be doing it for laughs.

@@Peachrocks5the "square root non-sense" is euclidien distance aka the distance you use irl all the time so it's not non-sense and it's interesting in this context as well (and yes it's funny as well)

@@poochycosme the problem is that his triangles don't actually count from the vertices, he only counts the squares in them which make them smaller.

I'm not sure to understand what you're saying but the angles of the "triangles" are on the center of squares

That's physically impossible.

Might as well say 'you cannot capture pieces but you can capture pawns'.

@@user-th1hu6hg9sjust don't capture anything, he has done that before (but yeah, there is no way he is taking any pieces)

What's wrong with that move ?

@@poochycosme They thought that if a move applied to one pawn it applied to all of them, instead of that one specific pawn. I must admit, that's what I thought at first.

@@IamGrimalkinyeah maybe

Nah it's the other way around, if they move 7 they can't move 6 or less squares. They even specify that a 1 square rook move is good for this reason because it still means the rook was exempt from the challenge.