A knight jumps three squares and falls over one. Or, on a bad day, jumps one square and falls over three.
My first chess book was a book on the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match. I remember following the games of the match every night. I was ~9 years old at the time. Fischer was the first professional chess player whose name I knew, and Spassky was the second. I was part of the Fischer generation too.
Yep. Dependent on the LA Times for reports of the games. Made 2nd Page As I recall.
I have seen some Kincrusher videoes on Fisher this evening. Especially I liked game 5 in the Fischer -Larsen match. It was extremely clean and beautiful. Perfect art!
The L shape is not particularly well suited. Imagine blindfolded. 1 square vertical or 1 horiz then 1 square diagonal forward works best imo. The knight does not jump over but through the 1st square.
What if the horizontal and vertical squares are blocked? Then he'd have to make his diagonal move first. L is easier for me to remember. No matter which squares are blocked, he can jump over them in an L pattern (just like a real horse would lol).
A knight jumps three squares and falls over one. Or, on a bad day, jumps one square and falls over three.
My first chess book was a book on the Fischer-Spassky 1972 match. I remember following the games of the match every night. I was ~9 years old at the time. Fischer was the first professional chess player whose name I knew, and Spassky was the second. I was part of the Fischer generation too.
You are the same age as me then. I was also 8 or 9 in 1972.
On a slightly more serious note, I think it was Lasker who explained the N move most succinctly: 1 straight move in any direction and then a diagonal move away from that square that is not already occupied by a friendly piece.
Yeah, it's just second nature to me. Has anyone ever tried doing The Knights Tour? That's where you put one knight on an empty board and you have to make it hit every square on the board once.
SmyslovFan wrote:
On a slightly more serious note, I think it was Lasker who explained the N move most succinctly: 1 straight move in any direction and then a diagonal move away from that square that is not already occupied by a friendly piece.
Beg your pardon but this is incorrect. In any direction could also imply a diagonal move, then followed by a diagonal move is illegal. The 1st move must be either along a rank or file, horizontal or vertical then diagonally in a forward movement. (Can not be back towards the starting square)
Once taught as the L shape it is difficult to envision any other. LIke a golf swing. Old habits are near impossible to break. I did. Simply envision chess moves blindfolded, and you'll see Laskers description superior to the L shape.
Knights do not jump over pieces, but through a square, occupied or not.
Trivia on the Knights tour. Try it once, few succeed. There exists more solutions than grains of sand on the earth. Hard to fathom, but fact.
I can now see where a "straight" move implies rank or file, but might be confusing as someone might suggest a diagnal is straight after all .
SmyslovFan wrote:
On a slightly more serious note, I think it was Lasker who explained the N move most succinctly: 1 straight move in any direction and then a diagonal move away from that square that is not already occupied by a friendly piece.
Beg your pardon but this is incorrect. In any direction could also imply a diagonal move, then followed by a diagonal move is illegal. The 1st move must be either along a rank or file, horizontal or vertical then diagonally in a forward movement. (Can not be back towards the starting square)
Once taught as the L shape it is difficult to envision any other. LIke a golf swing. Old habits are near impossible to break. I did. Simply envision chess moves blindfolded, and you'll see Laskers description superior to the L shape.
Well, I've been playing chess for 45 years, so I don't even have to think about it any more.
BF was good, but inarguably lacked creativity....his only weakness. It's a sore subject for some that's festered into feelings of deep disdain by way of contempt.
BF was good, but inarguably lacked creativity....his only weakness. It's a sore subject for some that's festered into feelings of deep disdain by way of contempt.
So says the Ghostess. Ok then, that is now a lead pipe locked fact... cause Lola says. :)
BF was good, but inarguably lacked creativity....his only weakness. It's a sore subject for some that's festered into feelings of deep disdain by way of contempt.
The reason some people believe Fischer lacked creativity is that he had a very narrow opening repertoire and didn't create an opening line that bore his name.
There's far more to chess than naming opening lines. Fischer's creativity was clearly evident in his many brilliancies. Anyone who plays through Fischer's games knows that Fischer was creative. His creativity was different from Tal's for example. But he approached positions in a way that astounded the best players in the world.
For those who don't know, George Koltanowski used to do blindfold Knight tours in his live displays. His feats of memory were remarkable.
The L shape is not particularly well suited. Imagine blindfolded. 1 square vertical or 1 horiz then 1 square diagonal forward works best imo. The knight does not jump over but through the 1st square.