the trickiest peice in chess?
Sort:
NM
TheOldReb
Dec 10, 2007
0
#21
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.
Dec 10, 2007
0
#22
I vote for the rook. While its easy to move few people ever move them correctly. Most games end with one or both rooks never being touched except to castle. This makes them trickier than knights and pawns.
Manipulated wrote: 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.
So , as unlikely as that is to ever happen it IS possible! Weird eh?
I'm sure there are titled players that refer to chess pieces and include pawns. Not necessarily every time they say "piece", but in some cases such as the context I described in my previous post. I've never argued the distincting between pawns and pieces that you just made in this post. In fact, I've agreed with it. I don't know why you keep making the same point over again.
"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."
There is a difference between technical rules that describe how the game is played and the language used by the players. Language is an evolutionary thing, words get their definition by common practice, not the other way around.
skwirlguts wrote: I vote for the rook. While its easy to move few people ever move them correctly. Most games end with one or both rooks never being touched except to castle. This makes them trickier than knights and pawns.
One of the reasons people have trouble getting their rooks to do something useful is that they have trouble making a useful open or half-open file for them. This is yet another way that pawns are tricky. Pawn exchanges open lines, but open lines could be good for you or for your opponent, so you have to know which lines to open and when.
I do agree that when either of the two rooks can come to an open file it can be tricky to decide which one to bring.
you two (loomis and reb) are funny.. and entertaining.. i didnt know that pawns were not considered pieces, but i dont think the vast majority of chess players do, or may, iono..
When I refer to all the chess "men" I usually say the "set" , like bring a chess set. I have also seen instructional booklets that referred to them as "chessmen" and distinguished between pawns and pieces. Why on earth the fide rule book wouldnt do this is beyond me. It seems it wasnt a chess player that wrote it but perhaps someone who knows the rules well enough but isnt really a player. I have also checked several chess glossaries with google and find it frustrating that some glossaries make the distinction that pawns are not pieces and others do not.
I won a few games with a fianchettoed bishop...and it goes along with the phrase "the best way to hide something is to keep it in plain view" you keep the bishop far on the diagonal...and when the time is ready...SNIPE hahaha the knight is cheap....you keep a knight on a square next to the king...block the king and MATE ohhh smother....hahahaha yea...i still love bishops more than knights...and they can be tricky
The pawn is the trickiest chessman. (a) Eight pawns can be arranged in more formations than two knights, bishops, or rooks, (b) the value of a pawn changes more than any other chessmen during a typical game, and (c) pawn moves are permanent.
good points "likesforests"
Pawns are the only pieces that capture different than they move! What little tricksters! They plod ahead forward like dumb little peons, but they only pretend to be dumb! Snap! BAM! Diagonal capture! No one ever sees it coming!
lol
"What little tricksters!"
And they also have that tricky move that sounds like a Passat.
Pawns are sacrificed more often than any of the other 'dudes' in the army. You always have to watch out for those pawn sacs.. tricky tricky.
Reb wrote: 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?
I never say I am a piece up in a game. There is a big difference between a queen, a rook, a knight and a bishop. Those I call the officers, the light officers and the heavy officers. If I have won one of those I would usually say which one.
likesforests wrote:The pawn is the trickiest chessman. (a) Eight pawns can be arranged in more formations than two knights, bishops, or rooks, (b) the value of a pawn changes more than any other chessmen during a typical game, and (c) pawn moves are permanent.
Pawns can also tranform into an officer. That is quite something. Yeah they are tricky. A famous chess player (don't remember who) said that the pawns are the soul of chess. But I also consider knigts rather tricky.
I thought knights and bishops are minor pieces and rooks and queen are major pieces. Pawns are usually not considered pieces . That is the most common definition , I think
Dec 10, 2007
0
#37
Oh, for Fischer's sake, would everyone quit with the piece/pawn thing already?! It's been covered a million times! The FIDE rulebook says it both ways at different points...isn't that enough for you?! Hasn't anyone ever heard the word "context" before? Jeez!
BTW, the quote is Steinitz
The argument about whether or not to call a pawn a "piece" is irrelevant to this discussion. If a pawn is more tricky than a knight, then it hardly deserves to be disqualified from the contest on a technicality.
My own opinion is that the knight wins. They sneak up from nowhere and ruthlessly kill when you least expect it. But the person who mentioned the pawn does make a good point: A pawn is easy to underestimate, and a pawn which has just been sitting there ignored while you fought the more "important" pieces can turn out to be the key to your defeat.
true.. i lost 1 because of a pawn...
