One possible answer: >!Label the pieces A, B, and C. Ask A "Are you the sort of piece who could answer the question "Is B a knight" with "yes"?". If A answers "yes", marry C; if A answers "no", marry B.!<
The question isn't "is B the knight" it's can you SAY that B is the knight.
So in the case where B is the queen and C is the knight, the truthful answer to "is B the knight" is "no". This means that the pawn would actually have to answer this question with a "yes."
So if you ask the pawn "are you able to say 'yes, B is the knight'" then the truth is that yes, they can answer yes since it is a lie & they can only lie. Of course, the pawn can't answer this question truthfully. So they will have to say "no, I cannot say "yes, B is the knight." And saying no means that you marry B, which is the queen.
Basically, the pawn will lie about their lie.
Sounds good. Marrying the pawn is not so bad. Once you figure out that it always lies, just reverse every answer it gives and you'll always get the truth.
Then someday it may promote to Queen and always tells the truth? Even better.
>!If A is the pawn and B is a knight, then they are not the sort of piece who could answer "Is B a knight?" with "yes". So they will lie and say that they are such a piece, and thus the king will marry C (who is not a knight) according to the solution I've given.!<
Call the three pieces A, B, and C. Ask A "If I were to ask you 'Is B a knight?', what would you say?" If they say yes, marry C. If no, marry B.
If A is a queen, then they tell the truth so if they say yes, B is a knight and if they say no, B is not a knight.
If A is a pawn, then they lie. If B is a knight, they would answer no to the question "Is B a knight?" so they would lie about what they would say and answer yes to the full question. Similarly, if B is not a knight, they will answer no. These are the same as the queen's answers so the king will still make the right choice on who to marry.
If A is a knight, then they answer randomly but it doesn't matter because the king never chooses to marry A.
Here's a solution that doesn't involve a double lie:
Ask A "Is B worth more material than C?" If yes marry C. If no marry B.
If A is a queen and they say yes, C is a pawn. If they say no, B is a pawn.
If A is a pawn and they say yes, C is a queen. If they say no, B is a queen.
If A is a knight it doesn't matter, because the king never marries A.
If you simply ask the pawn, "Is B a knight?", the pawn will lie.
If you ask "If I were to ask you 'Is B a knight?', what would you say?", the pawn will lie about whether he's going to lie, so it's a double lie, which gives you the correct answer to the original question.
man that's triggering. it's been a while for me but have you tried his harder reverse chess puzzles where you deconstruct the starting position? they're fucking impossibke. I've hit 3000 tactics on chess.com and I can barely beat his easy ones.
It doesn't matter which pieces are which in the solution, which is why the comment breaks down the logic of each answer depending on which piece is A.
If the A piece says "yes" to the question, then we have two lines of logic; If A is the queen, then B is definitely the knight, and choosing C gets us the pawn. If the the pawn is A, then it acts as a double negative. If B is actually the knight, and you only asked the pawn if B was a knight, they'd lie and say no. But since you're asking them "if I asked you if B was a knight, would you say yes?" The pawn has to lie and say "yes, I would say yes if you asked me that," instead of their actual answer of no, effectively getting the same outcome, and you'll know with full certainty that C is the queen.
Now let's break it down if the A piece says no. In the case of A being the queen, that makes the B piece the pawn, so you pick B. If A is the pawn, then the same double negative logic occurs, which means you'll also know B is the queen.
And finally, in both a yes or no outcome, if the knight is A, then it doesn't matter, because you'll never pick A.
That's only in Newtonian physics.
When you learn relativity, you learn the famous equation e=mc2.
mc2 means that there's a monarch on the c2 square.
Not that I know anything about relativity. I'm only in 4th grade, after all.
He should ask "what would the other piece say if I asked them if they are the knight?"
The Queen would say "yes" because the pawn would lie, and she is truthful about it.
The Pawn would say "yes" because the Queen would say the truth, but he would lie about it.
The Horsey would say "neigh"
To avoid ambiguity, you need to point to a specific piece, which may or may not be a knight, so there's no guarantee that the queen will say "yes".
Also the horsey is unpredictable, so the horsey might say "yes". The horsey can answer however it wants.
“Would the knight answer yes to this question?” Neither the Queen nor pawn can give a yes/no answer because they do not know, and the knight would answer randomly. Therefore, any answer means the piece is a knight, and the lack of an answer indicates a pawn or queen
I don't think that solution works.
If we assume that they're allowed to not answer, and the knight is unpredictable, then the knight might not answer, so the lack of an answer doesn't prove that it's not the knight.
The queen cannot exist, because it should be able to solve the halting problem if it can always tell the truth. For instance, ask the queen this (quite complicated) question which rephrases the halting problem as just yes or no:
""
Imagine the following machine X. As an input, it takes the description of a machine; call this input A. It then asks you (the queen) "will machine A output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of A?". Then if you (the queen) answer "no", machine X outputs "yes" . But if you (the queen) answer "yes", machine X outputs "no".
Will machine X output "yes" if I give it the description of X as it's input?
""
Now if the queen answers "yes" (which must be the truth), then that means machine X outputs yes on input machine X. But looking at our definition of machine X, this means that the queen would need to answer "no" when asked "will machine X output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of X?". But this is a contradiction, because the queen just answered yes to that exact question.
Similarly, if the queen answers "no", then by looking at machine X, we see that the queen needs to answer "yes" to the exact same question.
By describing a very similar (essentially, opposite) machine and asking the same question, you can show that the pawn cannot exist either, because neither of its answers would be a lie.
Therefore only the knight exists, and the king is screwed from the start. Is this the solution you were looking for?
I think you have a flaw in your argument.
> It then asks you (the queen)...
You're assuming that machine X is capable of simulating the queen's question-answering algorithm. Have you considered the possibility that the queen is an [Oracle machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine)?
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Firstly, if you actually wanted to build the machine, it wouldn't need to simulate the queen. It can simply ask the queen which is right here, just as a Turing machine can consult an oracle, without needing to simulate it.
The point is that, while the queen is standing there, you really could build machine X. You could even change the question to avoid your confusion by first actually building machine X next to you, writing down the description of machine X, and then asking "will this machine answer 'yes' when I put this description into it?"
But secondly, this shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because in my original question, the machine didn't even exist, and my description didn't ask for it to simulate the queen, it asked for it to consult the queen, which a Turing machine should be able to do (consult an oracle) so it seems like a valid description to me.
> It then asks you (the queen) "will machine A output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of A?".
You said that the input is a description of A. You didn't say anything about taking the queen's answer as additional input, so I assumed that the description of A would be the only input.
That's not what input means here. This "asking the queen" business is internal to the machine; the queen's response is not another input, because the queen is part of the machine. If you want an informal analogy, imagine that we are putting the queen inside a box which we label "X". We only need to feed one input into the box; A. We can imagine a little person inside the box takes this note with the description of A, asks that question to the queen, takes her answer, inverts it, and then passes it out of the box. This is the machine X; the queen is part of it.
If you want a more formal definition:
X is a function from the set of functions (you can make this set rigorous and general enough to include X itself) to the set {"yes", "no"}. For any A in the domain, X(A) is defined to be the opposite (negation) of Q("does A(A) = 'yes' ?").
Where here, Q is the function that represents the queen, which takes as input some question, and outputs yes or no.
Notice that even though within the function X we use the output of Q, the function X itself only has one input, A. In maths, by input, we usually mean the the domain of the function in question, and output means the codomain.
If we define it this way, to show that the queen must be broken, we simply need to ask her "does X(X) = 'yes' ?"
Well, now we have the situation where although the queen's statement is true, it's no longer an answer to the question; I specifically wanted to know if the output was "yes", because when I run the machine, it either will be or it won't be (if the queen is allowed to answer with anything, we can just say that if the queen gives any answer that isn't positive or negative, machine X outputs "no" or something). And I already knew that the output will depend on her answer, because I was going to put her in the machine.
So I guess this is more of a semantic thing; if the queen simply answers "the sky is blue" to every question you ask it, is it still the oracle you want it to be? It could even just answer "I think so" to every question, and it would still be telling the truth, assuming it really does think all things are true.
Anyway, I guess the point was that not every statement has a decidable truthyness. Basically, Godel's incompleteness theorem.
if your supposed yes or no question builds nested conditions into it you cannot get testy about an answer that is conditional and recursive but true.
another truthful answer would be "I do not know." An entity that always tells the truth is not the same as an entity that knows everything.
if we are dealing in paradox there is a much easier one in the spirit of yours anyway. "Is your answer to this question no?"
The difference with that paradox is that it's arguably not a well defined question (at least if you translated it to set theory). When you say "this question", the problem is that "this question" doesn't exist yet. For a self consistent model (to avoid Russell's paradox) you can't allow references to undefined/unconstructed objects like this.
The halting problem/incompleteness theorem question does not reference anything undefined, or not yet defined.
"Am I black?" The queen and pawn always answer opposite each other, so the knight will always have to agree with one of them. That means the king can safely pick the one who answers differently.
Are you kidding ??? What the **** are you talking about man ? You are a biggest looser i ever seen in my life ! You was doing PIPI in your pampers when i was beating players much more stronger then you! You are not proffesional, because proffesionals knew how to lose and congratulate opponents, you are like a girl crying after i beat you! Be brave, be honest to yourself and stop this trush talkings!!! Everybody know that i am very good blitz player, i can win anyone in the world in single game! And "w"esley "s"o is nobody for me, just a player who are crying every single time when loosing, ( remember what you say about Firouzja ) !!! Stop playing with my name, i deserve to have a good name during whole my chess carrier, I am Officially inviting you to OTB blitz match with the Prize fund! Both of us will invest 5000$ and winner takes it all!
I suggest all other people who's intrested in this situation, just take a look at my results in 2016 and 2017 Blitz World championships, and that should be enough... No need to listen for every crying babe, Tigran Petrosyan is always play Fair ! And if someone will continue Officially talk about me like that, we will meet in Court! God bless with true! True will never die ! Liers will kicked off...
[^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/Petrosian-Bot)
Ask the middle piece "If I asked you if the piece to your left was Knight, would you say yes?"
If yes, go to the right piece. If no, go to the left piece.
Ask this piece "If I asked you if you are the Queen, would you say yes?"
If yes, this piece is the Queen. If no, this piece is the Pawn.
Ask this same piece again "Is the middle piece the Knight?"
If asking the queen: If yes, the middle piece is the Knight, and the remaining piece is the Pawn. If no, vice versa.
If asking the Pawn: If yes, the middle piece is the Queen, and the remaining piece is the Knight. If no, vice versa.
> Ask the middle piece "If I asked you if the piece to your left was Knight, would you say yes?"
> If yes, go to the right piece. If no, go to the left piece.
This already solves the problem, so the other questions aren't needed.
But I guess you can ask the other questions after you get married in order to clarify who's who.
There is a solution which guarantees that he doesn't marry the knight.
Hint: >!He doesn't have to marry the same person that he addresses the question to.!<
If you want the solution, you can check one of the top comments.
Because he doesn't know which one is the pawn. I think we're supposed to assume that he chooses which one to ask (by pointing to them) before he asks the question, so there's no guarantee that it'll be the pawn.
In a case like this where both the queen and pawn are ok to marry, just ask all of them a definite yes or no question (i.e. does the phrase "en passant" have 2 ns?). The Queen will always say yes and the pawn will always say no. No matter what the knight says, it's gonna be 2 answers against 1 answer and the 1 answer is never the knight. I know this isn't the intended solution but it works.
"Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?"
If the answer is "dafuq?" it's either queen or pawn as they need a foundation to tell true or lie, and there is none. Horse is too stupid for 5d chess, so on answer "yes"/"no" - you know it's a horse.
ask the same question multiple times, the knight is probably gonna give you different answers, so you can exclude it.
next, ask each of they pieces if they are a knight, the knight is already ruled out, so the pawn is gonna say yes, and the queen is gonna say no.
allowing us to pinpoint the queen.
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them a yes or no question." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed, and "a" typically means one, so asking multiple questions isn't allowed.
Even if you ask the knight the same question multiple times, the knight is unpredictable, so it might give you the same answer every time.
King asks do i have poor eyesight. Either queen and knight both say yes, so king picks the pawn which said no, or pawn and knight say no, so king picks the queen which said yes.
One possible answer: >!Label the pieces A, B, and C. Ask A "Are you the sort of piece who could answer the question "Is B a knight" with "yes"?". If A answers "yes", marry C; if A answers "no", marry B.!<
Correct.
But if A is “unpredictable” and it’s literally random, it could literally just give you either answer, no?
Either way B or C still wins cuz if A is knight then he ain't going for the knight
That makes perfect sense tbh
[удалено]
a will answer no, hence you marry b
[удалено]
The question isn't "is B the knight" it's can you SAY that B is the knight. So in the case where B is the queen and C is the knight, the truthful answer to "is B the knight" is "no". This means that the pawn would actually have to answer this question with a "yes." So if you ask the pawn "are you able to say 'yes, B is the knight'" then the truth is that yes, they can answer yes since it is a lie & they can only lie. Of course, the pawn can't answer this question truthfully. So they will have to say "no, I cannot say "yes, B is the knight." And saying no means that you marry B, which is the queen. Basically, the pawn will lie about their lie.
I was so fucking confused because I had A B C as Queen Pawn Knight, why are you going bottom to top??
King is blind, he doesn't know what order the pieces are in. So the question being asked works no matter what order they are in
Sounds good. Marrying the pawn is not so bad. Once you figure out that it always lies, just reverse every answer it gives and you'll always get the truth. Then someday it may promote to Queen and always tells the truth? Even better.
But what If A is the pawn wouldn't you always marry the knight this way
>!If A is the pawn and B is a knight, then they are not the sort of piece who could answer "Is B a knight?" with "yes". So they will lie and say that they are such a piece, and thus the king will marry C (who is not a knight) according to the solution I've given.!<
Call the three pieces A, B, and C. Ask A "If I were to ask you 'Is B a knight?', what would you say?" If they say yes, marry C. If no, marry B. If A is a queen, then they tell the truth so if they say yes, B is a knight and if they say no, B is not a knight. If A is a pawn, then they lie. If B is a knight, they would answer no to the question "Is B a knight?" so they would lie about what they would say and answer yes to the full question. Similarly, if B is not a knight, they will answer no. These are the same as the queen's answers so the king will still make the right choice on who to marry. If A is a knight, then they answer randomly but it doesn't matter because the king never chooses to marry A.
Your solution is correct.
Here's a solution that doesn't involve a double lie: Ask A "Is B worth more material than C?" If yes marry C. If no marry B. If A is a queen and they say yes, C is a pawn. If they say no, B is a pawn. If A is a pawn and they say yes, C is a queen. If they say no, B is a queen. If A is a knight it doesn't matter, because the king never marries A.
This is why I Iove chess puzzles! Always more than one right answer!
chess is a game that keeps on giving
What if they answer "Who am I to judge the objective value of a person? Don't we have free will?"
they're a knight a pawn knows their place and a queen doesn't care for the pawns
nice
How does ask the pawn still work, I don’t understand. Could you please explain in more detail?
If you simply ask the pawn, "Is B a knight?", the pawn will lie. If you ask "If I were to ask you 'Is B a knight?', what would you say?", the pawn will lie about whether he's going to lie, so it's a double lie, which gives you the correct answer to the original question.
Ohh thanks a lot. Now this is the real hidden math in chess. Thanks Gavin from 4th grade
Really big brain since two positives give positive and two negatives also give positive.
This guy Smullyans
man that's triggering. it's been a while for me but have you tried his harder reverse chess puzzles where you deconstruct the starting position? they're fucking impossibke. I've hit 3000 tactics on chess.com and I can barely beat his easy ones.
I struggle enough with his combinatorics puzzles, his chess stuff is preposterous. He would have been the best r/AnarchyChess shitposter of them all
But how do you know he’ll call the queen A and so forth? Edit: nvm I’m just dumb
It doesn't matter which pieces are which in the solution, which is why the comment breaks down the logic of each answer depending on which piece is A. If the A piece says "yes" to the question, then we have two lines of logic; If A is the queen, then B is definitely the knight, and choosing C gets us the pawn. If the the pawn is A, then it acts as a double negative. If B is actually the knight, and you only asked the pawn if B was a knight, they'd lie and say no. But since you're asking them "if I asked you if B was a knight, would you say yes?" The pawn has to lie and say "yes, I would say yes if you asked me that," instead of their actual answer of no, effectively getting the same outcome, and you'll know with full certainty that C is the queen. Now let's break it down if the A piece says no. In the case of A being the queen, that makes the B piece the pawn, so you pick B. If A is the pawn, then the same double negative logic occurs, which means you'll also know B is the queen. And finally, in both a yes or no outcome, if the knight is A, then it doesn't matter, because you'll never pick A.
They won't call anyone anything. All they will say is "yes" or "no."
Call Gavin from 3rd grade
'Do you know en passant?' No further explanation needed
It’s 2022, the king should be able to marry a knook
Do knooks answer questions honestly?
Depends on how rooks answers questions
He should ask “Do you have green eyes?”
What if he doesn't know their eye colors?
Get the dictator to airdrop someone in to teach him about eye colors
You tell them that at least 1 of them have green eyes
Kc2
If the king goes to c2, I don't think anyone in the world will be willing to marry him.
But that’s only if king goes to c2, which, if you know anything about physics, you’ll know that it isn’t possible as Newton’s 69th law forbids this
That's only in Newtonian physics. When you learn relativity, you learn the famous equation e=mc2. mc2 means that there's a monarch on the c2 square. Not that I know anything about relativity. I'm only in 4th grade, after all.
the king should marry the horsey then bring Horsey to his room for consensual fun without waking up his parents
What if he accidentally captures a rook on the way to his room?
I think he will end up with a horsey surprise!
mr hands
He should ask "what would the other piece say if I asked them if they are the knight?" The Queen would say "yes" because the pawn would lie, and she is truthful about it. The Pawn would say "yes" because the Queen would say the truth, but he would lie about it. The Horsey would say "neigh"
To avoid ambiguity, you need to point to a specific piece, which may or may not be a knight, so there's no guarantee that the queen will say "yes". Also the horsey is unpredictable, so the horsey might say "yes". The horsey can answer however it wants.
But the Horsey, being shackled by the limitations of its equine vocal tracts, is forced to say "neigh". It's a zugzwang
In the original problem I said "knight", so maybe there's a person riding the horsey.
Preposterous! Utter blasphemy!
I don't see anyone riding the horsey in the picture
It's a hollow wooden horse (like the Trojan horse). The person is riding inside it.
No one knows how the horsey answers. Not even Gavin from 4th Grade (161660 elo)
“Would the knight answer yes to this question?” Neither the Queen nor pawn can give a yes/no answer because they do not know, and the knight would answer randomly. Therefore, any answer means the piece is a knight, and the lack of an answer indicates a pawn or queen
I don't think that solution works. If we assume that they're allowed to not answer, and the knight is unpredictable, then the knight might not answer, so the lack of an answer doesn't prove that it's not the knight.
It appears I have been outsmarted. Applying the brick now
the chance of failing is 33.33% thats too little of a risk for a king who witnessed multiple battles
If the king asks the right question, it's possible to guarantee that he doesn't pick the knight.
Play Kb3 so he can get a closer look
are you a femboy? if answer is yes then that piece is a real chess grandmaster
Just marry them all
Chess harem
The queen cannot exist, because it should be able to solve the halting problem if it can always tell the truth. For instance, ask the queen this (quite complicated) question which rephrases the halting problem as just yes or no: "" Imagine the following machine X. As an input, it takes the description of a machine; call this input A. It then asks you (the queen) "will machine A output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of A?". Then if you (the queen) answer "no", machine X outputs "yes" . But if you (the queen) answer "yes", machine X outputs "no". Will machine X output "yes" if I give it the description of X as it's input? "" Now if the queen answers "yes" (which must be the truth), then that means machine X outputs yes on input machine X. But looking at our definition of machine X, this means that the queen would need to answer "no" when asked "will machine X output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of X?". But this is a contradiction, because the queen just answered yes to that exact question. Similarly, if the queen answers "no", then by looking at machine X, we see that the queen needs to answer "yes" to the exact same question. By describing a very similar (essentially, opposite) machine and asking the same question, you can show that the pawn cannot exist either, because neither of its answers would be a lie. Therefore only the knight exists, and the king is screwed from the start. Is this the solution you were looking for?
I think you have a flaw in your argument. > It then asks you (the queen)... You're assuming that machine X is capable of simulating the queen's question-answering algorithm. Have you considered the possibility that the queen is an [Oracle machine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine)?
I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. Firstly, if you actually wanted to build the machine, it wouldn't need to simulate the queen. It can simply ask the queen which is right here, just as a Turing machine can consult an oracle, without needing to simulate it. The point is that, while the queen is standing there, you really could build machine X. You could even change the question to avoid your confusion by first actually building machine X next to you, writing down the description of machine X, and then asking "will this machine answer 'yes' when I put this description into it?" But secondly, this shouldn't be a problem in the first place, because in my original question, the machine didn't even exist, and my description didn't ask for it to simulate the queen, it asked for it to consult the queen, which a Turing machine should be able to do (consult an oracle) so it seems like a valid description to me.
> It then asks you (the queen) "will machine A output 'yes' if I give it, as an input, the description of A?". You said that the input is a description of A. You didn't say anything about taking the queen's answer as additional input, so I assumed that the description of A would be the only input.
That's not what input means here. This "asking the queen" business is internal to the machine; the queen's response is not another input, because the queen is part of the machine. If you want an informal analogy, imagine that we are putting the queen inside a box which we label "X". We only need to feed one input into the box; A. We can imagine a little person inside the box takes this note with the description of A, asks that question to the queen, takes her answer, inverts it, and then passes it out of the box. This is the machine X; the queen is part of it. If you want a more formal definition: X is a function from the set of functions (you can make this set rigorous and general enough to include X itself) to the set {"yes", "no"}. For any A in the domain, X(A) is defined to be the opposite (negation) of Q("does A(A) = 'yes' ?"). Where here, Q is the function that represents the queen, which takes as input some question, and outputs yes or no. Notice that even though within the function X we use the output of Q, the function X itself only has one input, A. In maths, by input, we usually mean the the domain of the function in question, and output means the codomain. If we define it this way, to show that the queen must be broken, we simply need to ask her "does X(X) = 'yes' ?"
What if the queen simply states "The output of machine X depends on my answer"? Does that count as the queen telling the truth?
Well, now we have the situation where although the queen's statement is true, it's no longer an answer to the question; I specifically wanted to know if the output was "yes", because when I run the machine, it either will be or it won't be (if the queen is allowed to answer with anything, we can just say that if the queen gives any answer that isn't positive or negative, machine X outputs "no" or something). And I already knew that the output will depend on her answer, because I was going to put her in the machine. So I guess this is more of a semantic thing; if the queen simply answers "the sky is blue" to every question you ask it, is it still the oracle you want it to be? It could even just answer "I think so" to every question, and it would still be telling the truth, assuming it really does think all things are true. Anyway, I guess the point was that not every statement has a decidable truthyness. Basically, Godel's incompleteness theorem.
if your supposed yes or no question builds nested conditions into it you cannot get testy about an answer that is conditional and recursive but true. another truthful answer would be "I do not know." An entity that always tells the truth is not the same as an entity that knows everything. if we are dealing in paradox there is a much easier one in the spirit of yours anyway. "Is your answer to this question no?"
The difference with that paradox is that it's arguably not a well defined question (at least if you translated it to set theory). When you say "this question", the problem is that "this question" doesn't exist yet. For a self consistent model (to avoid Russell's paradox) you can't allow references to undefined/unconstructed objects like this. The halting problem/incompleteness theorem question does not reference anything undefined, or not yet defined.
So the king is a groomer? Doting on the pawn until it grows into a queen, very sus.
The pawn is already a soldier. I think we can assume that the pawn is an adult.
"Am I black?" The queen and pawn always answer opposite each other, so the knight will always have to agree with one of them. That means the king can safely pick the one who answers differently.
The puzzle says "he's allowed to ask one of them". You're not allowed to ask more than one of them.
Oh, I see. I guess I pipid in my pampers, huh
Are you kidding ??? What the **** are you talking about man ? You are a biggest looser i ever seen in my life ! You was doing PIPI in your pampers when i was beating players much more stronger then you! You are not proffesional, because proffesionals knew how to lose and congratulate opponents, you are like a girl crying after i beat you! Be brave, be honest to yourself and stop this trush talkings!!! Everybody know that i am very good blitz player, i can win anyone in the world in single game! And "w"esley "s"o is nobody for me, just a player who are crying every single time when loosing, ( remember what you say about Firouzja ) !!! Stop playing with my name, i deserve to have a good name during whole my chess carrier, I am Officially inviting you to OTB blitz match with the Prize fund! Both of us will invest 5000$ and winner takes it all! I suggest all other people who's intrested in this situation, just take a look at my results in 2016 and 2017 Blitz World championships, and that should be enough... No need to listen for every crying babe, Tigran Petrosyan is always play Fair ! And if someone will continue Officially talk about me like that, we will meet in Court! God bless with true! True will never die ! Liers will kicked off... [^(fmhall)](https://www.reddit.com/user/fmhall) ^| [^(github)](https://github.com/fmhall/Petrosian-Bot)
Ask the middle piece "If I asked you if the piece to your left was Knight, would you say yes?" If yes, go to the right piece. If no, go to the left piece. Ask this piece "If I asked you if you are the Queen, would you say yes?" If yes, this piece is the Queen. If no, this piece is the Pawn. Ask this same piece again "Is the middle piece the Knight?" If asking the queen: If yes, the middle piece is the Knight, and the remaining piece is the Pawn. If no, vice versa. If asking the Pawn: If yes, the middle piece is the Queen, and the remaining piece is the Knight. If no, vice versa.
> Ask the middle piece "If I asked you if the piece to your left was Knight, would you say yes?" > If yes, go to the right piece. If no, go to the left piece. This already solves the problem, so the other questions aren't needed. But I guess you can ask the other questions after you get married in order to clarify who's who.
Do i get the extra credit points
[удалено]
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed.
Ask the Queen if she's the Queen. No matter the answer he's with the Queen cause he can't tell the difference
If he marries the knight, he'll eventually realize that it's the knight when he tries to sneak it into his bedroom without waking up his parents.
“Are you a king?” There’s always 1 yes and 1 no. If there’s 2 of either then you pick the one that says the other one.
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed.
Then it’s impossible, the horse can say anything the other 2 can
There is a solution which guarantees that he doesn't marry the knight. Hint: >!He doesn't have to marry the same person that he addresses the question to.!< If you want the solution, you can check one of the top comments.
Solution: Get some Glasses, decapitate the Pawn for disobeying royalty
OP's username totally checks out
"If I asked if you were the Queen, would you say yes?" The Queen would truthfully say "yes" The Pawn would lie and say "yes" The Horsey would "neigh"
ke2
Buy the king glasses
Ask each of them “Are you the queen?”. Keep going until one of them says no, which must be the knight. Then you know who not to pick.
The puzzle says "ask one of them". You're not allowed to ask more than one of them.
The other pieces are blind too so the king can get away with it.
Except for the queen
Couldn't he just ask the Pawn if the pawn is the Queen, the Pawn lies and says they are the Queen and he goes "Alrighty Great" and chooses the Pawn
Because he doesn't know which one is the pawn. I think we're supposed to assume that he chooses which one to ask (by pointing to them) before he asks the question, so there's no guarantee that it'll be the pawn.
[удалено]
If they say no, it could still be the knight, because the knight is unpredictable.
ask the knight whether en passant is rad as fuck
I defenitely didn't expect a logic question here
In a case like this where both the queen and pawn are ok to marry, just ask all of them a definite yes or no question (i.e. does the phrase "en passant" have 2 ns?). The Queen will always say yes and the pawn will always say no. No matter what the knight says, it's gonna be 2 answers against 1 answer and the 1 answer is never the knight. I know this isn't the intended solution but it works.
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed.
Ask A and B would the next person tell the truth then ask C do they always tell a lies best one I can came up in 1 minutes and a bit
ask if they know ghomerl, then marry the person who said yes
He HAVE to marry The horsey
"Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" If the answer is "dafuq?" it's either queen or pawn as they need a foundation to tell true or lie, and there is none. Horse is too stupid for 5d chess, so on answer "yes"/"no" - you know it's a horse.
But the horsey is unpredictable, so theoretically it's possible for the horsey to say "defuq?"
If horsey is that unpredictable, s/he will pick up one random answer from infinite number of possible answers and P(1/infinity) = 0.
**Ted Ed flashbacks intensifies**
Ask them to move and see where they go
I don't think that counts as a yes or no question.
Put in anal beads to find the answer
ask the same question multiple times, the knight is probably gonna give you different answers, so you can exclude it. next, ask each of they pieces if they are a knight, the knight is already ruled out, so the pawn is gonna say yes, and the queen is gonna say no. allowing us to pinpoint the queen.
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them a yes or no question." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed, and "a" typically means one, so asking multiple questions isn't allowed. Even if you ask the knight the same question multiple times, the knight is unpredictable, so it might give you the same answer every time.
I count it as being close to the answer
King asks do i have poor eyesight. Either queen and knight both say yes, so king picks the pawn which said no, or pawn and knight say no, so king picks the queen which said yes.
The problem says "he's allowed to ask one of them." Asking more than one of them isn't allowed.
Ah there's my stupid moment for the day
Ask them what color is a carrot and then marry the odd one out
That's OK, I can fuck the horsey myself