Talk:Pawn (chess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

old talk[edit]

These diagrams need to be standardized. --malathion talk 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Pawn promotion[edit]

6.6.4 PAWN promotion: On reaching the last rank, a pawn must be immediately exchanged, as part of the same move, for a queen, a rook, a bishop, or a knight of the same color as the pawn, at the player's choice and without taking into account the other pieces still remaining on the chessboard. This exchanging of a pawn is called 'promotion' and the action of the promoted piece is immediate.

"A queen, a rook, a bishop, or a knight". Not a king! -- Curps 11:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of animated images[edit]

I believe that the article, in fact all articles, are better off without animated images. In chess articles, there is no need for them, since a diagram with arrows can illustrate moves quite well. Wikipedia doesn't need distractions like this. --Yath 21:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In matter of fact, I strongly believe in the use of animated ilustration in an electronic Encyclopedia like this one, and your point about being distracted by this kind of image it's a sort of POV, in fact no one else made an observation like this one before. Jfreyre

I've often thought there very much should be animations on the chess articles, but on the other hand I think it would be more useful if there were a way for the reader to control them, and I don't think this is really feasible. For now it's probably best to leave things as is. --Jammoe 22:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

on many browsers you can press escape to stop all animated gifs Skullers (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pawn movement.[edit]

"Pawns may not use the initial two-square advance to jump over an occupied square, but it can be used to capture." What?!? I've never, ever, ever, ever heard this, or seen it. Pawns capturing straight ahead? Clarify? Fix it? What? --Jammoe 22:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That was added on March 9, 2007 by somewho made only that edit. It was either vandalism or another case of people thinking they know something editing the article. It is one of the "benefits" of the "anyone can edit" policy. I'll fix it. 02:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Promote to pawn.[edit]

may be i'm wrong but I heard that you can claim for a pawn when it reaches the 8th rank...so the pawn gets back to the original square..for example if you promote in d8 it gets back to d2, this would be illegal if d2 it's occupied.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.89.23 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No such thing. The actual rule is quoted under #Pawn promotion above. -- Jao (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Also see promotion (chess) and Rules of chess#Movement, the part about Pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

En Passant addition to the game[edit]

This article contradicts itself regarding when the en passant move was added to the game. The section describing it says late thirteenth century, but the History section says that the double opening move was not added until the 15th century. Can anyone cite references for either date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.117.187 (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The rules of chess weren't standardized then - they varied from place to place and time to time. It says in one place that it was introduced in the 13th century but in the 15th century in Europe, which may be true. It may have taken that long for the rule to be adopted in Europe. But can someone check on this? Bubba73 (talk), 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Trapping pieces using pawn structure[edit]

copied from my talk page":

I don't understand why you tagged my statement "a player might have the opportunity to trap an enemy piece using his pawn structure" with "citation needed", saying "this doesn't make much sense to me". How does it not make sense? There's a diagram illustrating it (the Noah's Ark Trap) right there on the page. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the part about its weakness being its strength. In almost all cases you would like to exchange a weaker piece for a stronger one. "Citation needed" means that a reference is needed - not a diagram. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Bubba. "Weakness as strength" is confusing, and unnecessarily colorful and enigmatic prose. (For example, it would be no more appropriate to say "a pawn's weakness is also its strength" than to say "a queen's strength is also its weakness", and, we do not describe the queen's power as "counterintuitive".) Also, there are many ways in which a pawn can exert strength -- not just by trapping pieces. (Suggesting the section should either be expanded, or abandoned.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
it is like saying that a rook's strength is that it is weaker than a queen. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad the section is gone. Encyclopedic description of chess pieces should not incorporate "counterintuitive" or riddles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, of course the idea that weaker units can be used to attack stronger units is not really counterintuitive. It's pretty obvious, and even beginners frequently delight in "giving check" to the enemy queen with a pawn or minor piece. I thought the wording of the section title and text was rather too zen and mysterious for an encyclopedia article, and I would really prefer that significant additions to chess articles in 2013 be accompanied by a good reference at the time they are installed. Quale (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Weakness as strength" section[edit]

The "Weakness as strength" section is problematic - starting with the title. The sentence about weakness is a strength makes no sense. The rest of the section really has little or nothing to do with the subject of the section. The diagram of the fork and the sentence about the fork doesn't say much. The diagram and sentence about Noah's Arc trap is OK, but it doesn't belong in this section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)