Because it is illegal.
Don't ask why I have time to answer you.
why is 1. hxg3 a bad move?
Sort:
What a troll
williamn27 wrote:
Because it is illegal.
Don't ask why I have time to answer you.
let's assume it was legal. why is it bad?
1. hxg3 opens up the rook, but it creates a double pawn on the g file. Blocking in the pawn on g2 is a problem itself, but it also causes another problem. The kingside knight is claustrophobic, and while it can still jump to f3, it prefers to only do so if there's no pawn directly in front of it. To place two pawns in front makes it exceedingly nervous, and it's liable to outright refuse to move, making you lose your turn.
BlargDragon wrote:
1. hxg3 opens up the rook, but it creates a double pawn on the g file. Blocking in the pawn on g2 is a problem itself, but it also causes another problem. The kingside knight is claustrophobic, and while it can still jump to f3, it prefers to only do so if there's no pawn directly in front of it. To place two pawns in front makes it exceedingly nervous, and it's liable to outright refuse to move, making you lose your turn.
thank you. i knew i could count on you to give a serious answer.
newengland7 wrote:
williamn27 wrote:
Because it is illegal.
Don't ask why I have time to answer you.
let's assume it was legal. why is it bad?
If it were legal, I think it is good.
If it were legal for pawns to move in the same way that they now capture (as well as their actual powers) then the whole structure of chess would be destroyed, no-one would be interested in it, and we would not be here humouring the OP and their trollish question.
Aug 20, 2016
0
#9
ModestAndPolite wrote:
If it were legal for pawns to move in the same way that they now capture (as well as their actual powers) then the whole sgtructure of chess would be destroyed, no-one would be interested in it, and we would not be here humouring the OP and their trollish question.
wrong assumption
BlargDragon wrote:
1. To place two pawns in front makes it [the knight] exceedingly nervous, and it's liable to outright refuse to move, making you lose your turn.
Yes, this is quite correct. Knights put in this position are also quite likely to whinny, stamp their feet, bolt or even throw their riders. hxg3 may also inhibit the early exit of the bishop on g2, and this move should therefore be especially avoided on Sundays and on religious holidays when the good bishop is most likely to have clerical duties to perform.
I would prefer 1. axb3 allowing for rapid queenside expansion
Girl is over eighteen.Its legal!
pestebalcanica wrote:
yes I think that is moved that isn't right
ModestAndPolite wrote:
If it were legal for pawns to move in the same way that they now capture (as well as their actual powers) then the whole sgtructure of chess would be destroyed, no-one would be interested in it, and we would not be here humouring the OP and their trollish question.
wrong assumption
israel173 wrote:
pestebalcanica wrote:
ModestAndPolite wrote:
If it were legal for pawns to move in the same way that they now capture (as well as their actual powers) then the whole sgtructure of chess would be destroyed, no-one would be interested in it, and we would not be here humouring the OP and their trollish question.
wrong assumption
yes I think that is moved that isn't right
But what if it is allowed ONLY in the first move? Is it good?
Or how about if the starting position is like that (i.e. no pawn on h2 and a white pawn on g3)?
I have seen an article online that said 1. hxg3 is a bad move. I do not why. It opens up a file immediately for the white rook. is there like a principle that it's bad to develop the rook that soon?