After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 779928 - illegal move
illegal move
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 427114
Product: gnome-chess
Classification: Applications
Component: General
3.22.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-chess-maint
gnome-chess-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-03-12 09:44 UTC by romain
Modified: 2017-10-20 16:01 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 3.21/3.22

Attachments
video of the illegal move (191.25 KB, video/webm)
2017-03-12 09:44 UTC, romain 		Details

Description romain 2017-03-12 09:44:39 UTC 
Created attachment 347742 [details]
video of the illegal move

Hello,

In the video in attachment, you can see the computer capturing my pawn in an illegal way.

Here is the content of the pgn file :

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.03.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[BlackAI "HoiChess"]
[BlackLevel "easy"]
[Time "10:24:23"]
[X-GNOME-ClockType "simple"]
[X-GNOME-TimerIncrement "1"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4 Nxe4 4. Nxe4 dxe4 5. Qe2 Qxd4 6. c3 Qd5 7. c4 Qa5+ 8. Bd2 Qf5 9. g4 Qxg4 10. Qxg4 Bxg4 11. h3 Be6 12. f4 exf3 *
Comment 1 Mario Wenzel 2017-03-12 09:54:08 UTC 
This isn't illegal. The rule is called "en passant" or "in/while passing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant

If this is not the issue, feel free to comment again and I reopen.
Comment 2 Michael Catanzaro 2017-03-12 15:19:14 UTC 
Yup, thanks Mario!

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 623648 ***
Comment 3 romain 2017-03-12 15:37:37 UTC 
(In reply to Mario Wenzel from comment #1)
> This isn't illegal. The rule is called "en passant" or "in/while passing".
Oh, i'm sorry. This is the first time since I have been playing chess that I see a such move, i was thinking about a bug.

Thank you for your explanation.
Comment 4 Michael Catanzaro 2017-10-20 16:01:49 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 427114 ***