It depends what you mean by sqaure. Clearly the answer is 64.
I refer you to post #1.
It appears the beginning of this thread has been a little re-written since I was last there.
It depends what you mean by sqaure. Clearly the answer is 64.
I refer you to post #1.
It appears the beginning of this thread has been a little re-written since I was last there.
It depends what you mean by sqaure. Clearly the answer is 64.
I refer you to post #1.
It appears the beginning of this thread has been a little re-written since I was last there.
So you read it 3 months ago when it was posted, and only commented about it 1 day ago?
Or are you suggesting between yesterday and today the OP recalled his 3 month old opening post and decided to re-word it?
wafflemaster, I wasn't arguing for 64 or any specific number. If you read there rest of my post you'll find some squares no one else seems to want to point out.
It depends what you mean by sqaure. Clearly the answer is 64.
I refer you to post #1.
It appears the beginning of this thread has been a little re-written since I was last there.
So you read it 3 months ago when it was posted, and only commented about it 1 day ago?
Yes. Someone bumped it in the meantime and it reappeared in "most recent posts."
wafflemaster, I wasn't arguing for 64 or any specific number. If you read there rest of my post you'll find some squares no one else seems to want to point out.
That's why I said the classic definition of a square. Maybe I should say geometric.
Sure the question wasn't posed a rigorously as it could have been. I think most reasonable to assume #of squares on a chess board is 204 is correct. The board containing a physical board is not necessary and is assuming too much. The abstract concepts like "square of the passed pawn" is definitely assuming too much.
It depends what you mean by sqaure. Clearly the answer is 64.
I refer you to post #1.
It appears the beginning of this thread has been a little re-written since I was last there.
So you read it 3 months ago when it was posted, and only commented about it 1 day ago?
Yes. Someone bumped it in the meantime and it reappeared in "most recent posts."
I only mention it because your first post was yesterday.
So you're suggesting you read it as it was originally written (as far back as 3 months ago) and didn't comment until yesterday.
I think it's more likely you only read the title and skimmed / ignored the OP to blow our minds by pointing out the definition mentioned 65 sqaures... and if you ignore the sqaure board it mentions then only 64! Hah! Take that people who posted 3 months ago!
How did I know the OP was different before if I didn't read it 3 months ago?
Exactly :)
204 no more
But those are only filled squares, what abot squares that are empty, eg a and h files + 1st and 8th ranks?
Imagine I have a hobby made board. It was made by a pretty good carpenter, but one who's never made a chess board before. The squares are cut from veneer which came in long strips 1 inch wide. The man marked them off every inch and cut them apart not accounting for the saw curve, so each square came out about a 1 x 15/16th inch rectangle. You'd think this would be bothersome, but it's actually difficult to notice with the naked eye. People play chess on this board, also checkers; it's a functional board. Is this a chessboard? If so how many squares are on a chessboard? This board is technically made from rectangles and has either 0 or 64 squares depending whether you're counting the shape square or the location on the board in chess. (Or more if you want to count imperfect squares or my squares for knight and bishop moves or something like that.... Rooperi, I don't understand your concept of "empty" squares.) Really for this question to be answerable we need a more exact defintion of not only "square" but also "chessboard."
....... Rooperi, I don't understand your concept of "empty" squares.) Really for this question to be answerable we need a more exact defintion of not only "square" but also "chessboard."
a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, c2, a3, b3 and c3 form a square.
If you leave out b2, you still have a square, don't you? Only now, it's just the 'frame', the square itself is empty. I'm not sure if it's the same square. or a differrent one.
....... Rooperi, I don't understand your concept of "empty" squares.) Really for this question to be answerable we need a more exact defintion of not only "square" but also "chessboard."
a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, c2, a3, b3 and c3 form a square.
If you leave out b2, you still have a square, don't you? Only now, it's just the 'frame', the square itself is empty. I'm not sure if it's the same square. or a differrent one.
A maths teacher wouldn't be happy with that post...
....... Rooperi, I don't understand your concept of "empty" squares.) Really for this question to be answerable we need a more exact defintion of not only "square" but also "chessboard."
a1, b1, c1, a2, b2, c2, a3, b3 and c3 form a square.
If you leave out b2, you still have a square, don't you? Only now, it's just the 'frame', the square itself is empty. I'm not sure if it's the same square. or a differrent one.
A maths teacher wouldn't be happy with that post...
Good one, Rooperi. For that matter you might also consider square frames with a thickness of more than 1 chess sqaure, for instance the outer 2 rows and files as one large sqaure. No, DefinitelyNotGM, for math purposes a square has no thickness and being filled or empty doesn't mean anything, who said we were in math class here? For a more common, real life use definition of the word sqaure a filled square is certainly different than an empty one.
noun
Wrong and wrong. "End of argument" means "I have no argument." You were proven wrong about the border trick, even your brother knows it. You didn't address any of the proofs against your trick question, that's running away.
NO, end of argument because you were just coming up with the same point that had already been refuted.
Refute this.
Look at the google images results for chessboards, and ignore the virtual boards. The first 5 physical ones are:
There are 64 sqaures for that definition. A "sqaure board" is not necessarily the same as a "sqaure."
I cut the quote here because I think that sums up your argument.
Yes, it depends on what is meant by square. If it's the classic definition of a square, then clearly there are more than 64... even in the definition of a chess board itself.
If it's a square as defined in the game rules, something like e.g. "functions as a unique location for a single piece" then sure, there are only 64.