alt Hacker NewsThe wording is very unambiguous, it means something very specific in chess. In every legal chess position either White is checkmated or Black is checkmated or (by far the most common except in film and TV!) neither side is checkmated. So the wording is crystal clear, you should be able to freely place the White king on any of the unoccupied 59 squares and the position will be one of those in which White is checkmated.
A real shame, this totally ruined the puzzle for me as it seemed so unlikely that all five Black pieces would be mutually protected. I should have forced myself to ignore the faulty clause and try to solve without it. The bad clause is also completely unnecessary - one of those cases where deleting text (or code!) is an improvement with no downside!
I'd argue that if you remove the clause you still have the same issue. The problem statement says, “so that there is no square not under their attack”, which in my reading includes the squares occupied by the pieces, and a piece cannot attack itself.