removing the attacker?
Term for this tactic?
Sort:
ransom?
kidnap?
hostage?
That's what I would call it.
It might depend on the exact way it's done. Here is one example and how I would call it. I would simply say that 1. Qe4 is a fork. White forks the a8 rook and mate.
1. Qe4 is a direct double attack. In other positions, the second attack could be a discovery.
Forlorn Hope is military description of such struggle.
Good nominations! I like "forlorn hope" the best so far... very poetic! I guess I better suggest something too: How about "A.B.C." ... "anything but checkmate"?
Here's a contrived example of what I mean. After Ra6, black must take the rook with the queen, otherwise Rxh6 is checkmate. Again, I just whipped this up, so I might not have checked all the variations, but hopefully you get the idea. I suppose this particular example could be termed a 'pin' on the queen against mate, but I know there are other instances that don't really fit into any other categories. I'll post one if I come up with it.
Yeah! What's the smiley for blushing with chagrin?
that is not a tactic, it's simply a mate threat.
What?! That's like saying a double attack isn't a tactic, it's simply two threats...
redearth329 wrote:
What?! That's like saying a double attack isn't a tactic, it's simply two threats...
That's true, but then is it still a double attack if there are not two threatened pieces? In Loomis' example, it is a double attack (not a fork because two or more friendly units are involved) on the a8 rook and the h7 pawn. But if there was no pawn on h7, would it still be a double attack?
Is this still a fork?
reaearth:read what wrote. He is taking about a mate threat, that wins material. A double attack is a tactic that wins material..
Loomis' position featured a double attack. Yours could have been called a pin. The following is proabably more what you were trying to describe in your first post. There are no tactics involved other than a threatened mate in one.
In my mind, this is not a tactic. It is just a mate threat. But what about my 'fork' from post #12. That is not technically a fork in the traditional sense, but I would still call it a tactic.
Aug 16, 2008
0
#14
Im pretty sure your example's a pin while loomis' example is a fork. If I'm not mistaken, a fork is just one kind of double attack. But as for the original question, there is no name for the broad tactic. Like in Loomis's example, the queen forks the rook and mate.
I assume most people have found this site since typing "Chess Tactics" into google leads right there, but the "Chess Tactics Explained in English" (Predator at the Chess Board" site is the best tactical web site I've ever seen, but I've never seen anyone else mention it...If you've never seen it, definitly check it out!
As an intermediate player, I started really drilling on tactics some time ago. When I first started, I easily saw the classic forks, pins, skewers, x-ray attacks, blah blah blah... the textbook stuff, but I continually missed the mate threats that cause the opponent to have to sacrifice material to stop them (post 14 is a good example). Eventually I began to see this as a common motif, but I always distinguished it from 'real' mate threats, which actually lead to checkmate. I probably wouldn't even make a mate 'threat' that my opponent could escape without coughing up material... because that isn't really a threat at all. In my mind this motif deserves the term 'tactic' because it is a forcing move that wins material. The point of making a mate threat that forces the opponent to sacrifice material is not to checkmate, but to win material, as one should never assume that one's opponent will not stop the mate.
Well, I suppose 'mate threat' will do as a concise term...
Aug 16, 2008
0
#17
Just look at the mate threat as the square. Its a pin if there is a piece blocking the mating square so if the piece moves then mate would occur. Its a fork if you attack a piece and the mating square at same time.
Hmmm. I can't seem to get my head around your question. What you are describing is more of a positional situation than a tactical manuevre. I'm not really seeing where there would be a name for the offensive tactic. The defensive tactic it sounds like you are describing would be an exchange sacrifice. If you are using pieces to avoid mate but not getting full exchange value on them, then it is an exchange sacrifice. You may be giving up two pawn value a pop, but your king lives to see another day. When the defender is having to toss pieces into the fire to save himself, this is usually the result of prior offensive tactics, not the tactic itself.
"Mating Badger" might be a suitable expression.
I find that a common tactic is to threaten a forced mate starting next move unless your opponent gives up some material to stop it, independant of any other pins, forks, skewers, etc. I was wondering if there was perhaps a concise term for this tactic, as using the whole sentence 'threatening a forced mate starting next move unless your opponent gives up some material to stop it' becomes tiresome after a while for such a common tactic.