Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2016 March 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 10

where to buy: Sheet Music with lyrics to: 'Undecided' & 'My Blue Heaven' by The Delta Rhythm Boys, from Sing Brothers Sing Album, with Glen Miller Orchestra

Hello! I am trying to create a quartet here in a retirement community in central Florida and I want to sing a couple of songs by The Delta Rhythm Boys, 'Undecided' and 'My Blue Heaven' recorded on their - Sing Brothers Sing album backed by the Glen Miller Orchestra preferably. Can you help identify where I can go for that music? I have tried Wikipedia and it has provided some history, but not where I can find the music. Thank you in advance!

J. Walker Retired — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.169.84 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I was unable to find the song you are looking for. I did find some sheet music from The Delta Rhythm Boys, for example the song "Take the 'A' Train", you can buy it for 5 euro at musicnotes.com. This and that may also be interesting to you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you looking specifically for four-part vocal arrangements? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Rain term

Resolved

 – 07:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In Rain (1932 film) there is a term used frequently in (presumed) reference to a prostitute. It is difficult to make out what they are saying due to poor audio, accents, etc. -- Anybody know? ~Thanks, 2600:1004:B002:C399:5092:AA58:C57:295B (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What did it sound like ? Where in the movie is it said ? Where is a clip we can listen to ? StuRat (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just saw the movie on cable (TCM), so don't have a 'clip'; it was said at least 3~4 times in 1st 20~30 minutes. Term was approx. 5 syllables long, and due to context was likely a US (military?) slang for "prostitute"; sounded Polynesian-ish to me. -Dynamic IP:2600:1004:B002:C399:4CC9:64B5:E14E:F72 (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the complete film on youtube. See if you can tell us some timestamps where they're saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's the scene at 21:40, the word is "Iwelei" - "the plague spot of Honolulu". This is the relevant passage from the novel. We don't have an article on the area, but see this site. Tevildo (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

And here is a link to that section of the play's script. Both short story and the play refer to Iwelei as Honolulu's red-light district. Iwilei is listed under List of ghost towns in Hawaii#Honolulu County. -- ToE 00:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The scene at 21:40 is indeed where Sadie Thompson's background is first discussed and "Iwelei" (sounds like "evil-lay"?) is the word . Thanks for the info and links! -- BTW, I tried to add YouTube link to [scene at 21:40], but it was rejected: site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. -- How come Baseball Bugs' link wasn't rejected? ~Dynamic IP:2600:1004:B019:951E:90D3:11D6:61A5:4021 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's true that natives pronounce the "w" like a "v", that "evil-lay" pronunciation would make sense. As to why I was able to link it and you weren't, I have no clue. Maybe it's a regional thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

How I check if a move is allowed on my turn, on chess, without recursion?

How the hell i check if a move is legal or not on chess?
Anyway, chess players cant make a move that would put his king into check.
But to check if the enemy would be able to capture your king next turn, you would need to check if this move enemy would do is legal and so wouldn't lead to check (since players cant make moves that put themselves into check) but then to check if if this enemy move is legal you would need to check if you would be able to capture his king after this movie, but to check it you would need to check if this move legal, and so on and so on.....
How people deal with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.53.69 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You only need to look at if your king is in a position where an enemy piece can theoretically move. There's no requirement to look at if the enemy actually moving there would put him into check. StuRat (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Let chess+1 be like chess, except that you win by actually taking the opponent's king. In chess+1 you don't need to worry about your winning move exposing your own king to attack, because the game is over. Checking whether a chess+1 game can be won on the next half-move is trivial and requires no lookahead. Chess confusingly ends one move early, but the principle is the same: you can't leave the board in a state that would be an immediate win for the opponent in chess+1. -- BenRG (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just incidentally, I used to play this "chess+1" with a friend over lunch when we were in high school. The advantage was that it allowed a greater chance to win through your opponent's stupidity (i.e. failing to notice a check), which of course was great fun. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So, when looking if the enemy could hypothetically capture you if you move to square X, the player will check the if the enemy would be able to win the game under chess +1 rule on the next half move (assuming you move to square X), but when checking if your own move is valid you must check if its valid under normal chess rules? A very confuse ruleset. You MUST win under normal chess rules for the sake of wining, but enemy can win under chess+1 for the sake of looking if the move you make will be illegal or not.201.79.48.202 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The rule is very simple - you cannot make a move which leaves your own king in check. If you did so, your opponents next move would be to take your king - which is the same as checkmate and the end of the game. Whether taking your king exposed your opponent's king to check is irrelevant: when your king is taken the game is over, you have lost, and have no possibility of taking your opponents king even if it is exposed to one of your remaining pieces.109.150.174.93 (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a reference desk, the FIDE Laws of Chess say:

3.9 The king is said to be 'in check' if it is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces, even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check. No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

5.1 a. The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent’s king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move.

3.9 is not relevant to the question due to 5.1 a. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the OP is asking if the only winning move is not to play uhhlive (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I confess that I struggled to understand the question. I read it three times (and the answers). I think the OP is asking how you can be sure that the move you've just made is legal, because you can't be certain that you've not left yourself in check? If so, the answer is, many beginners do make this precise mistake, but a reasonably competent chess player would notice. So the answer is, don't worry about it and play more. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White is not allowed to move pawn.

No, the question is based on a misunderstanding of the rules. The poster thinks white is allowed to move the pawn in the diagram, because black will expose his king to check if he then moves the bishop to capture the white king. But white is not allowed to move the pawn. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The ancient Japanese variant of chu shogi has a similar problem. There is a rule that you can only use a lion to capture an enemy lion when recapture is impossible; so if the lion is protected by another lion, and attacked by another piece, you then have to check if the recapture is legal. But the resolution is different, presumably because the lion is not the "goal piece" that you are trying to capture in chu shogi. (You can play on without it; it's just that its capture is restricted because it spices up the game.) In chess, pinned pieces give check, as the game of "chess+1" ends when your king is lost, and gives you no opportunity to retaliate. Double sharp (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Is" on film posters

Just noticed that some old film posters used to advertise the main character in the form of "Foo is [lead role]", such as "Kathy Shower is Robo-C.H.I.C." or "Suzie China is the Oriental Vixen". What's the approximate time period when such bygone taglines were used? The last I saw is on the poster for the 1990 movie aka Robo C.H.I.C. aka Cyber-C.H.I.C. Brandmeister^talk 22:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Al Pacino IS Scarface" (1983) [1] springs to mind. Alansplodge (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice ("Sean Connery IS James Bond") gets us back to 1967. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)