Ego?
Where did that logic come from?
Sort:
Nov 3, 2013
0
#4
1. Kxd2 Rxc2+ might have given your opponent some problems. 2. Kxc2 Qxb2+ and white's king is forced into the open. If 3. Kd1 then ...Rd8+ 4. Ke1 Bc3+ 5. Kf1 Qxa1+ 6. Qe1 Qxe1# But at least your opponent lost the queen to another queen. 
Edit: The other option is also mate. 3. Kd3 Qd4+ 4. Kc2 Rc8+ and it should be mate in a few more moves.
Nov 3, 2013
0
#5
Sunshiny wrote:
1. Kxd2 Rxc2+ might have given your opponent some problems. 2. Kxc2 Qxb2+ and white's king is forced into the open. If 3. Kd1 then ...Rd8+ 4. Ke1 Bc3+ 5. Kf1 Qxa1+ 6. Qe1 Qxe1# But at least your opponent lost the queen to another queen.
Edit: The other option is also mate. 3. Kd3 Qd4+ 4. Kc2 Rc8+ and it should be mate in a few more moves.
Respect the queen, Sunshiny!
Nov 3, 2013
0
#6
pdela wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
1. Kxd2 Rxc2+ might have given your opponent some problems. 2. Kxc2 Qxb2+ and white's king is forced into the open. If 3. Kd1 then ...Rd8+ 4. Ke1 Bc3+ 5. Kf1 Qxa1+ 6. Qe1 Qxe1# But at least your opponent lost the queen to another queen.
Edit: The other option is also mate. 3. Kd3 Qd4+ 4. Kc2 Rc8+ and it should be mate in a few more moves.
Respect the queen, Sunshiny!
In (some of) the immortal words of Ash: "Hail to the Queen, baby!"
Sunshiny wrote:
1. Kxd2 Rxc2+ might have given your opponent some problems. 2. Kxc2 Qxb2+ and white's king is forced into the open. If 3. Kd1 then ...Rd8+ 4. Ke1 Bc3+ 5. Kf1 Qxa1+ 6. Qe1 Qxe1# But at least your opponent lost the queen to another queen.
Edit: The other option is also mate. 3. Kd3 Qd4+ 4. Kc2 Rc8+ and it should be mate in a few more moves.
Thanks for they analysis, but the position above is not the real game at all, I obviously wasn't notating. So I just set up a similar position. At the time, I don't remember it making much of a difference either way. I think i was up by a piece and a couple of pawns. The point is his comment!
Nov 4, 2013
0
#8
Beginners frequently ask whether a pawn is allowed to capture a queen, which strikes me as another twist on the thinking described here. My hunch is that such concerns spill over from some game where rank affects capture because chess resembles a game, so there's a belief that its rules might be similar.
Ziryab wrote:
Beginners frequently ask whether a pawn is allowed to capture a queen, which strikes me as another twist on the thinking described here. My hunch is that such concerns spill over from some game where rank affects capture because chess resembles a game, so there's a belief that its rules might be similar.
It may also be from phrases like "the queen is the strongest" or "the most powerful"
FWIW I dislike these phrases because it masks why queens are worth more than rooks and minors... it's because of mobility. This concept gives rise to all sorts of ideas that may seem advanced to a beginner who doesn't understand this simple idea. Things like development and improving your worst piece. The king's worth in the endgame, positional sacrifices, and gambits. All piece's attacks and defenses are the same. Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
/rant
waffllemaster wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Beginners frequently ask whether a pawn is allowed to capture a queen, which strikes me as another twist on the thinking described here. My hunch is that such concerns spill over from some game where rank affects capture because chess resembles a game, so there's a belief that its rules might be similar.
It may also be from phrases like "the queen is the strongest" or "the most powerful"
FWIW I dislike these phrases because it masks why queens are worth more than rooks and minors... it's because of mobility. This concept gives rise to all sorts of ideas that may seem advanced to a beginner who doesn't understand this simple idea. Things like development and improving your worst piece. The king's worth in the endgame, positional sacrifices, and gambits. All piece's attacks and defenses are the same. Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
/rant
That's awesome, I never thought of it that way... Very true.
This comes from history, in the past nobles (the queen is even royal) were allowed to kill ordinary men and especially pawns, whereas a pawn were not allowed to kill a noble, no matter what. If a noble killed a pawn, the "owner" of that pawn -another noble- had the right to take revenge because his property got damaged. The pawn or his family didn't ahve that right himself. That's why it's not fine if a pawn killes a queen.
That´s why the most satisfying mates are sacrificing your queen for a pawn, only to deliver mate with a pawn on the next move ...
Nov 4, 2013
0
#13
waffllemaster wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Beginners frequently ask whether a pawn is allowed to capture a queen, which strikes me as another twist on the thinking described here. My hunch is that such concerns spill over from some game where rank affects capture because chess resembles a game, so there's a belief that its rules might be similar.
It may also be from phrases like "the queen is the strongest" or "the most powerful"
FWIW I dislike these phrases because it masks why queens are worth more than rooks and minors... it's because of mobility. This concept gives rise to all sorts of ideas that may seem advanced to a beginner who doesn't understand this simple idea. Things like development and improving your worst piece. The king's worth in the endgame, positional sacrifices, and gambits. All piece's attacks and defenses are the same. Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
/rant
Are you familiar with Dan Heisman's Elements of Chess Strategy? Mobility is the first of his seven elements. After reading his book, and then going back to Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor, I noticed that Steinitz describes the value of each piece in the beginning by explaining that piece's mobility.
Heisman calls development a "pseudo-element".
Your "rant" is on the money.
Ziryab wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Beginners frequently ask whether a pawn is allowed to capture a queen, which strikes me as another twist on the thinking described here. My hunch is that such concerns spill over from some game where rank affects capture because chess resembles a game, so there's a belief that its rules might be similar.
It may also be from phrases like "the queen is the strongest" or "the most powerful"
FWIW I dislike these phrases because it masks why queens are worth more than rooks and minors... it's because of mobility. This concept gives rise to all sorts of ideas that may seem advanced to a beginner who doesn't understand this simple idea. Things like development and improving your worst piece. The king's worth in the endgame, positional sacrifices, and gambits. All piece's attacks and defenses are the same. Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
/rant
Are you familiar with Dan Heisman's Elements of Chess Strategy? Mobility is the first of his seven elements. After reading his book, and then going back to Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor, I noticed that Steinitz describes the value of each piece in the beginning by explaining that piece's mobility.
Heisman calls development a "pseudo-element".
Your "rant" is on the money.
No, I didn't know that.
It just goes to show that "beginner" books have so many gems... it's too bad that (at least in my experience) they don't stand out or stick in the memory until you're nearly good enough to have realized it on your own.
Oh well, they plant good seeds. Thoughts for the unconscious to work on I suppose.
One time I came up with some reasoning as to why central space is more important. And I was a bit mad because I thought beginner books never explained the reasoning... flipping through a Reinfeld book I noticed he explained that reasoning and even more... it was a bit embarrassing to me that I hadn't remembered.
waffllemaster wrote: Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
very interesting and succintly written. thank you.
Nov 4, 2013
0
#16
Somebodysson wrote:
waffllemaster wrote: Only mobility, or rather, the probability of being useful, is what makes a piece valuable. And when it's useful it doesn't make any difference whether it's represented by a knight icon or a queen icon.
very interesting and succintly written. thank you.
Yeah, what about the King?
hmmm, king changes at different points in the game. Smothered mates and making luft show king mobility can also be an issue, but generally the mobility of the other pieces protect their king and attack the other king, by tactics on pieces, squares, king,, etc.
Nov 4, 2013
0
#18
well, the question was for wafflemaster, but thanks :), I didn't find where he said so
pdela wrote:
well, the question was for wafflemaster, but thanks :), I didn't find where he said so
ah, I didn't realize. I'd still be interested in what wafflemaster has to say; he knows his stuff much better than I do.
Wafflemaster? You are wanted :)
I was playing a casual game of chess with my 12 year old freind at my house. He's no tourny player so it wasn't really trying to hard.
Now, I don't remember the actual position, but It was something like this:
Where did that come from? "I guess I'll lose my Queen anyway, but at this way it'll be to a Queen and not a Bishop." Why does it matter what peice recaptures?!
Just thought I'd share!