they arent really considered pieces
So they are pieces, and were also specifically mentioned in the OP
they arent really considered pieces
So they are pieces, and were also specifically mentioned in the OP
they arent really considered pieces
So they are pieces, and were also specifically mentioned in the OP
I think pawns are not considered as pieces
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece
Capablanca said that pawns are the soul of chess
Lol but where did he said they are pieces.
1) It may mean any of the physical pieces of the set, including the pawns. When used this way, "piece" is synonymous with "chessman" (Hooper & Whyld 1992:307) or simply "man" (Hooper & Whyld 1987:200). 2) In play, the term is usually used to exclude pawns, referring only to a queen, rook, bishop, knight, or king
It looks like you're confusing yourself. I'd assumed your comment saying they weren't pieces was sarcastic, especially as it linked to an article stating that they were in fact pieces^...
It looks like you're confusing yourself. I'd assumed your comment saying they weren't pieces was sarcastic, especially as it linked to an article stating that they were in fact pieces^...
Dude I am not confusing myself just try searching pawns are not pieces on the Internet at the same time when I check it on wiki it says that pawns are pieces.
Dude I am not confusing myself just try searching pawns are not pieces on the Internet at the same time when I check it on wiki it says that pawns are pieces.
You posted a link to an article stating that pawns are pieces, whilst posting that it stated the opposite.
That article also gives an example of a specific context where "saying" piece would actually mean only Knight or Bishop. Yet nobody here is saying that Queens or Rooks aren't pieces...
The only other people in this thread saying that pawns aren't pieces are somebody trolling/being sarcastic (made very obvious by the pawns are worthless comments) and somebody low rated.
You sound confused to me but if you're not, you're not. That's fine.
Dude I am not confusing myself just try searching pawns are not pieces on the Internet at the same time when I check it on wiki it says that pawns are pieces.
You posted a link to an article stating that pawns are pieces, whilst posting that it stated the opposite.
That article also gives an example of a specific context where "saying" piece would actually mean only Knight or Bishop. Yet nobody here is saying that Queens or Rooks aren't pieces...
The only other people in this thread saying that pawns aren't pieces are somebody trolling/being sarcastic (made very obvious by the pawns are worthless comments) and somebody low rated.
You sound confused to me but if you're not, you're not. That's fine.
Well your username is dedicated to pawn so you may be knowing more than me about pawns
Dude I am not confusing myself just try searching pawns are not pieces on the Internet at the same time when I check it on wiki it says that pawns are pieces.
You posted a link to an article stating that pawns are pieces, whilst posting that it stated the opposite.
That article also gives an example of a specific context where "saying" piece would actually mean only Knight or Bishop. Yet nobody here is saying that Queens or Rooks aren't pieces...
The only other people in this thread saying that pawns aren't pieces are somebody trolling/being sarcastic (made very obvious by the pawns are worthless comments) and somebody low rated.
You sound confused to me but if you're not, you're not. That's fine.
Well your username is dedicated to pawn so you may be knowing more than me about pawns
yeah, I agree
you guys forget that pawns aren't pieces.
Since when?