3 ms·
yes, GP reached the same conclusion as you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550176 I'm still unsure, as I
by frading 2y ago
yes, GP reached the same conclusion as you. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40550176
I'm still unsure, as I describe in my reply there, an issue I see is that you can't know the path a pawn would take, unless you know where it comes from.
But since both of you reached the same solution, I'll keep thinking about it.
- paipa 2y agoI get the dillemma, but I don't think it's a problem that the string of squares used to define "foward" isn't always the same as path the pawn will actually take if it chugs along. This only happens when there's no straight path to the opponent's backrank, so you are allowed to go "sideways-foward" until you hit a square from which there is a clean forward path again. Agreed that the past should not matter, only the current position.
- frading 2y agoThanks a lot for insisting of this, and that end up convincing me. I describe the change in the sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40634675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40634675 That was super useful. So don't hesitate if you have any other feedback.