Editing Retrograde analysis (section)

==Example==
{{Chess diagram
| tleft
|'''Éric Angelini''',<br />''Europe Echecs'' 433, Apr. 1995

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |rd|  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |kl|  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |kd|qd|pd|bd
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  
|'''Black to move. What was White's last move?'''}}
An example of a retrograde analysis problem is shown on the left. The solver must deduce White's last move.  It is not immediately apparent how the white king could have moved, since every adjacent square puts White in a seemingly impossible double check; on further examination it becomes apparent that if the white king moved from f5, then Black could have delivered the double check by playing f4xg3, capturing a white pawn on g4 ''en passant''. Therefore, on the previous move, white must have played pawn g2-g4. But what did Black move before that? The white king on f5 was under check by the bishop on h3 and there was a white pawn on g2.  The only possibility is that Black moved a knight from g4 to e5 with [[discovered check]]. Therefore, White's last move was king on f5 takes knight on e5. (The entire sequence of moves is 1...Ng4–e5+ (possibly capturing something on e5) 2.g2–g4 f4xg3+ e.p.&nbsp;3.Kf5xe5.)

In this example, the fact that Black can deliver [[checkmate]] in several different ways is irrelevant; likewise, the fact that White could legally have captured the black queen by gxf3 on an earlier move is irrelevant. The solver is required only to deduce a ''legal'' sequence of moves which lead to the position, regardless of any considerations of chess strategy.
{{-}}