Is the goal to follow established precedent (which may itself be contradictory), or to be clear and unambiguous? If the latter, then just go with two definitions, isolated pawns and exposed isolated pawns.
Isolated Pawn - precise definition
Sort:
I'm not aware of an authoritative source for chess jargon.
Use the definition you like.
Well, an isolated pawn is a pawn who has no friendly pawns on either adjacent file. Here you can read more:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/isolated-pawn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_pawn
Nov 26, 2011
0
#5
From the Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd edition...
Isolated pawn - A pawn is isolated when there are no pawns of the same colour on adjoining files. If attacked it may be a weakness, for it must be defended by pieces which then assume a passive role; if the square in front of such a pawn is not occupied by an enemy pawn then that square is a HOLE, sometimes a source of weakness. On the other hand an isolated pawn may confer advantage: it guards ADVANCE POINTS on adjoining files; if supported by pieces it might be moved forward to disrupt the opponent's game. (See ISOLATED QUEEN'S PAWN.) If passed and far from the scene of action an isolated pawn could be used as a DECOY. (See OUTSIDE PASSED PAWN.)
Passed pawn - A pawn is passed when no enemy pawns on the same or an adjoining file stand on the ranks ahead. Only a piece can prevent the advance of such a pawn.
Thanks all for the responses.
For those that referenced other places with definitions online, thank you, but these are exactly what I was referencing in my original post. I believe they are wrong - at least based on my current understanding. I looked at some of the grandmaster games and the theory expostion on this, and found that the pawn is exposed on the file - no opposing pawn on the file. I haven't looked at a whole lot of games though.
For those that suggest that it doesn't matter what the definition is, and question the reason for a clear and precise definition. Thank you for the response, but your suggestion is an obvious one that was already considered. The reason for posting was because that solution does not really address the issue.
There are clear reasons for having precise definitions of certain things. For one it is the basis of communication. In this particular case, the entire structure of a position is different depending upon the definition. If someone were to say to me that they had an isolated pawn, it could mean completely different things depending upon the definition.
Vance, by suggesting the 2 options, one would either be redundant or be implying that the definition does not inclue being exposed. Therein lies the difficulty. If the additional term "exposed" is introduced, it changes the definition of just "isolated pawn".
Rarun, the point is that while it is true that definitions are useful, there isn't the equivilant of the Academie Francaise for chess.
Different writers have used different definitions.
Thus, you have no real choice but to choose the one you like and clarify your definition when necessary to enable clear communication.
Dave, thanks for the continued response. Appreciated, but I disagree. Its not about requiring a Academie Fracaise for chess. Its about sensible communication. The reason we come up with phrases and meanings is to facilitate communication. When a particular phrase can mean something significantly different, it should have a clear meaning. Imagine having to describe a "passed pawn" every time you needed to. You don't because it has a precise and unambiguous meaning.
This linguistic argument apart, I do believe that the meaning of the phrase includes the fact that the pawn is exposed. If this is the meaning that a chess master might use on the phone while talking, or when it is written somewhere without the possibility for asking for a precise meaning, it becomes very difficult to appreciate what was being said. Sites such as wikipedia putting up incorrect definitions make the situation worse. Imagine if I were to corrupt the meaning of passed pawns by changing wikipedia to materially change the meaning.
Precise definitions matter.
Additionally, I suspect that there is a precise definition or at least understanding out there, but unfortunately is not immediately available online. I am sure that when one grandmaster says "Isolated Pawn" to another they both know precisely what is meant - without the need for additional information.
Again, different writers have used different defintions. That is primae fascie evidence that there is not a universal definition. In the abscence of an authoritative body to provide denotative meanings equivilent to the AF, definitions catalogue usage. If a term is being used with different meanings, then it has multiple defitions.
I suspect that the most common usage, the definition that would appear first in a dictionary of chess terms, would be the one where there is no enemy pawn blocading the pawn in question. But I have certainly seen respected chess commentators and authors use the term differently -- as obviously have you.
Indeed, I believe you are mixing up an isolated pawn with a passed pawn.
BTW- It's an "semi-open file", not an "exposed" file...
Ok, an isolated pawn is a pawn that has no friendly pieces anywhere by it. It's not rocket science people.
rarun, You want a precise definition of an isolated pawn. I think the definition is very precise as has been presented in this topic. A pawn that has no friendly pawn on either adjacent file. Very clear and precise I would say. That definition has been valid for as long as I have been playing chess which is about fifty years and I regard it as still valid. It seems as if wowiezowie is correct that you are mixing up an isolated pawn with a passed pawn (see post number 11).
Isolated pawn is isolated if it has no friendly pawns on adjacent files.Be on an exposed file is not a necessary requirement but it is more difficult to attack an isolated pawn that is not on an exposed file.In every case piece placement defines if the isolated pawn is a liability or an asset so the exposed file defines not the isolated but the easiness of attacking it.If the side with the isolated pawn has passive pieces then attacking it becomes significantly easier if it is on a semi-open file.
Nov 27, 2011
0
#15
BlueKnightShade wrote:
rarun, You want a precise definition of an isolated pawn. I think the definition is very precise as has been presented in this topic. A pawn that has no friendly pawn on either adjacent file. Very clear and precise I would say. That definition has been valid for as long as I have been playing chess which is about fifty years and I regard it as still valid. It seems as if wowiezowie is correct that you are mixing up an isolated pawn with a passed pawn (see post number 11).
That definition has been in existence at least since 1842. From the Oxford English Dictionary:
OED: ‘An isolated pawn is one that has no comrade on the same or either adjoining file, so that he requires the support of a Piece.’
Chess Exemplified by C. Pearson (London, 1842), page 27.
Source:
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/earliest.html
Nov 27, 2011
0
#16
rarun - you raise a valid question. The generic definition (pawn is isolated if it has no friendly pawns on adjacent files) is the commonly-accepted definition. However, the more specific case you mention (especially if the isolated pawn is a d-pawn), has been written about extensively. Here are a couple of links which may help (apologies if these are duplicative of earlier posts):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_pawn
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_orlov_middlegame/041004_isolated_central_pawn.html
Also, an isolated pawn may or may not be a passed pawn (usually it is not).
Here is an example of the isolated d-pawn from the second link mentioned above:
R Vaganian - D Bronstein
Erevan, 1975
1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nd2 c5 4.Ngf3 Nc6 5.exd5 exd5 6.Bb5 Bd6 7.dxc5 Bxc5
It is my understanding that an Isolated Pawn is defined to be a pawn with no friendly pawn on either adjacent file, AND is on an exposed file - i.e. there is no opposing pawn on that file.
However most of the definitions that I am able to find online define it as only the first part: no friendly pawn on either adjacent file. I even came across a place suggesting that the way to detect an isolated pawn in a chess program is to simply examine the adjacent files for the existence of friendly pawns, with no mention of checking for the pawn being on an exposed file.
Most classic examples of isolated pawns show the definition to be what I understood - must be on an exposed file. However, I am not able to find an authoritative definition of an isolated pawn.
Can someone point me to an authoritative definition of an Isolated Pawn?