Anthony Viens wrote on Wed, Nov 14, 2018 07:43 AM UTC:
H.G. Miller, I'm sorry, I missed your response.
Here is my problem: the move is specifically defined as 'one square orthogonally, then one square diagonally outward.'
My assumption (possibly/apparently incorrect) is that spaces without notation are not squares, do not exist, and therefore cannot be used as part of any piece's movement.
The white knight is in a8. The only spaces that appear to be orthogonally adjacent are a6 and c8. Diagonally outward from those spaces yields only b5 and d7.
I don't see a path to c6......without counting the quarter-circle empty space within a8 as orthogonally adjacent to a8. Diagonally outward from that empty space yields c6 as the destination. But I wouldn't think the empty space would be used as part of the path, at least without directly mentioning it; such as 'the knight can leap over non-existent squares.'
(If the Knight's movement was defined as one space diagonally, then one space orthogonally outward, it makes sense. The white knight starts in a8, diagonally moves to b6 or d7, and then moves orthogonally outward to one of b5, c6, or d7. The white knight would actually have two routes to c6. But the movement path of the knight is specifically defined as 1 orthogonally, then 1 diagonally outward.)
Basically, Ben Good went through the trouble of specifically defining the leaping knight's move (something I consider necessary to avoid questions on this crazy cool board) and then his example does not seem to match the defined move!
If there is a path I am missing, please show me. But the only one I see is using the non-existant quarter circle within a8.
H.G. Miller, I'm sorry, I missed your response.
Here is my problem: the move is specifically defined as 'one square orthogonally, then one square diagonally outward.'
My assumption (possibly/apparently incorrect) is that spaces without notation are not squares, do not exist, and therefore cannot be used as part of any piece's movement.
The white knight is in a8. The only spaces that appear to be orthogonally adjacent are a6 and c8. Diagonally outward from those spaces yields only b5 and d7.
I don't see a path to c6......without counting the quarter-circle empty space within a8 as orthogonally adjacent to a8. Diagonally outward from that empty space yields c6 as the destination. But I wouldn't think the empty space would be used as part of the path, at least without directly mentioning it; such as 'the knight can leap over non-existent squares.'
(If the Knight's movement was defined as one space diagonally, then one space orthogonally outward, it makes sense. The white knight starts in a8, diagonally moves to b6 or d7, and then moves orthogonally outward to one of b5, c6, or d7. The white knight would actually have two routes to c6. But the movement path of the knight is specifically defined as 1 orthogonally, then 1 diagonally outward.)
Basically, Ben Good went through the trouble of specifically defining the leaping knight's move (something I consider necessary to avoid questions on this crazy cool board) and then his example does not seem to match the defined move!
If there is a path I am missing, please show me. But the only one I see is using the non-existant quarter circle within a8.