<p>It cannot be done "naturally" in a normal chess game though.</p>

<p>The pawns on columns A and H only have 1 square of influence for attacking/defending, since they are on the edge of the board. To move them further into the board, they would have to capture another piece, and if you do, you don't have <strong>all</strong> the pieces on the board anymore. </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-20T09:09:01.160Z
2019-03-20T09:09:01.160Z
user985366
<p><strong>Yes</strong>, and it's not particularly hard to do. Here's one solution. </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/LQY2e.png" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p>I found this by placing the pawns first (because they are much more limited in their attack/defence potential), and then adding the pieces one at a time. Using this simple manual approach, it took about 15 minutes to find a solution. As an added constraint, I avoided placing the kings in check. </p>

<p>There are undoubtedly many alternative arrangements that would also work. It would be quite straightforward to write a computer program to search for valid configurations. A simple brute-force <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking" rel="nofollow noreferrer">backtracking algorithm</a> would probably suffice.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-09T02:35:00.253Z
2012-01-18T20:17:53.360Z
2012-01-18T20:17:53.360Z
ire_and_curses
<p>Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-08T16:25:23.987Z
When you say "pieces," do you mean *just* the pieces, or the pawns as well?
BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-05-08T17:40:26.127Z
I mean the pawns as well. I think doing it that way makes it more interesting and complicated... :P
El'endia Starman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-09T20:59:25.977Z
This reminds me of a computer problem, How do place X (I forgot the number) queens on the board so they don't "attack" each other?
Tom Au
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-09T21:20:00.703Z
@Tom: Perhaps you're thinking of this one? http://www.math.utah.edu/~alfeld/queens/queens.html
El'endia Starman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-06-09T21:22:51.327Z
@El'endia: Exactly.
Tom Au
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T17:53:35.860Z
@BlueRaja - since when are pawns not pieces?
Charles Boyung
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T18:20:47.710Z
@Charles: I'm not sure why, but in chess literature, "pieces" refers to everything but pawns (with "minor-pieces" referring to the bishops and knights).  So for instance, when Nimzovich says *["Control the center with pieces"](http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/3363#3363)*, he means don't control it with pawns, as in  traditional theory.  See also [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_%28chess%29).
BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
CC BY-SA 3.0
2011-07-13T18:40:57.410Z
@BlueRaja - interesting, I had never seen anything like that.
Charles Boyung
<chess><puzzles>
Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?
El'endia Starman
# Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2011-05-08)

Is it possible to position all chess pieces on the board such that all pieces defend at least one piece and attack at least one piece?

**Tags:** chess, puzzles

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: When you say "pieces," do you mean *just* the pieces, or the pawns as well?  
> **username_0**: I mean the pawns as well. I think doing it that way makes it more interesting and complicated... :P  
> **username_2**: This reminds me of a computer problem, How do place X (I forgot the number) queens on the board so they don't "attack" each other?  
> **username_0**: @Tom: Perhaps you're thinking of this one? http://www.math.utah.edu/~alfeld/queens/queens.html  
> **username_2**: @username_0: Exactly.  
> **username_3**: @username_1 - since when are pawns not pieces?  
> **username_1**: @username_3: I'm not sure why, but in chess literature, "pieces" refers to everything but pawns (with "minor-pieces" referring to the bishops and knights).  So for instance, when Nimzovich says *["Control the center with pieces"](http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/3363#3363)*, he means don't control it with pawns, as in  traditional theory.  See also [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_%28chess%29).  
> **username_3**: @username_1 - interesting, I had never seen anything like that.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2011-05-09. Score: 19 | Accepted answer

**Yes**, and it's not particularly hard to do. Here's one solution.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/LQY2e.png)

I found this by placing the pawns first (because they are much more limited in their attack/defence potential), and then adding the pieces one at a time. Using this simple manual approach, it took about 15 minutes to find a solution. As an added constraint, I avoided placing the kings in check.

There are undoubtedly many alternative arrangements that would also work. It would be quite straightforward to write a computer program to search for valid configurations. A simple brute-force [backtracking algorithm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking) would probably suffice.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-03-20. Score: 1

It cannot be done "naturally" in a normal chess game though.

The pawns on columns A and H only have 1 square of influence for attacking/defending, since they are on the edge of the board. To move them further into the board, they would have to capture another piece, and if you do, you don't have **all** the pieces on the board anymore.


---

