chess is a tricky game with tricky pieces but, which one do you think is the trickiest? in my opinion, i think the knight is the trickiest piece in chess because the only thing that can really protect itself from a knight attack is, another knight... some ppl might say the queen is the trickiest but i dont think so. although it has the powers of a rook and bishop in one, and the widest ability of moves, it still cant protect itself from a full on knight attack. but that just my opinion, whats yours? tell what piece you think is the trickiest and tell why!

The pawn is the trickiest piece because it cannot go backwards. This aspect of the pawn means that when you move it, it can never return to its old duties. It can sometimes be very tricky to figure out when is the right time to move a pawn.

Definitely think the knight is the trickiest and craftiest, I can't tell you how many hard fought games I have lost because of the opponent's knight sneaking around.  The knight and queen are an excellent team.

lomis, that is true. but when i was saying tricky, i was thinking more along the lines of clever tricky, not difficult tricky, so we're both right.....(it looks like this face has a black eye, and not winking... shitty emotion face..lol)

I feel loomis makes an excellent point and I agree with it. Just one point on the knight though, the knight may be the silent assassin of chess, but I feel it is not as tricky as expressed in this forum. Quite useful though.

I'll admit that pawn moves can be tricky and you need to very careful about moving them, but, those bloody knights can be real sods when used in combinations!

Red

i think the knight is brilliant.. when has any piece other than the knight been ably to fork a queen, rook and bishop, while putting the king in check? it was completely safe! i just did that my last game..it was beautiful.. i took the queen of course..

My vote also goes for the knight.  It's ablity to fork up to 8 pieces coupled with the fact that it can not be blocked when checking the king (it can be taken but there's no way to put a piece between it and the king like you can with a rook, bishop or queen) make it ideal for forcing the king to move thereby killing any plans of castling and at the same time taking some material from your opponent.

the trickiest has to be world peace. nobody has mastered that yet.

Very good erik.

I'd say the king.  It goes from extremely weak to extremely powerful, and it's hard to gage where it should be!

I agree about knights.  I love to use them to force plays.  You can place the king in check and take a queen or rook.  As much as I love to use them I hate having them used against me.  I can't count the number of times I have had games severely disrupted by a knight.   I make it my goal to eliminate knights as soon as possible.

yea.. in the past couple of weeks, i have learned how good the king actually is. it really is self-efficient in  alot of cases.. i think its point value is a 5 on moving ability( i read.)

" My vote also goes for the knight.  It's ablity to fork up to 8 pieces"

 

That's a trick I'd like to see. I think the knight can only fork 7 pieces.

Loomis wrote:

" My vote also goes for the knight.  It's ablity to fork up to 8 pieces"

 

That's a trick I'd like to see. I think the knight can only fork 7 pieces.

---

Since you are one who obviously includes pawns as pieces then a knight can fork 8 pieces, and can even if you dont count pawns as pieces.

Reb, maybe you don't recall that thread as well as you think you do.  My point here is if the knight is attacking 8 pieces (pawns or not, feel free to promote a few if it makes anybody happier) where did it move from?

Reb wrote: Loomis wrote:

" My vote also goes for the knight.  It's ablity to fork up to 8 pieces"

 

That's a trick I'd like to see. I think the knight can only fork 7 pieces.

---

Since you are one who obviously includes pawns as pieces then a knight can fork 8 pieces, and can even if you dont count pawns as pieces.

---

 I think he refers to the fact that to get the knight to fork pieces it must leave a square empty (thus only forking 7 pieces out of 8 squares. Although if the knight forks and black's next move is to put a piece on that empty square then the knight could fork 8 pieces.

Based on the popularity of the term "fork", from now on when one piece attacks one other piece it shall be known as "knifing" and when two pieces coral a single piece they shall be said to "spoon it". As in, after I promoted my pawn, my two queens spooned the enemy king.

I see your point and you are right, however a pawn is not a piece. If you are a pawn up in a game do you say you are a piece up? What does someone usually mean when they say they are a piece up? Your post #2 indicates that you consider pawns as pieces. Is this not correct?

Reb, we had this discussion once before. In that thread I fully acknowledged that the term "piece" was often used in reference to non-pawn chessmen (I do that myself quite a bit, I never doubted it!). However, the term "piece" is also widely used to refer to any of the chessmen. As in, "I've got a bag full of chess pieces here." Ever hear anyone say something like "I've got a bag of chess pieces, and some pawns too." Heck, it was pointed out that the FIDE rules use the word "piece" in a way that includes pawns. Is it so difficult that to agree that both uses are common practice?

There are things that are common practice though that are still wrong. Players castling when touching rook first , or offering a draw incorrectly, adjusting pieces incorrectly etc. I believe if you ask any titled player if they consider pawns as pieces they will say no. Try it sometimes next time you are at a tourney. So, yes I agree that some people do refer to all the chess units as "pieces" I think its incorrect to do so. If a beginner is taught he should develop all his pieces and the same book tells him he shouldnt make too many pawn moves this could be confusing for a person who also considers the pawns as pieces.