Talk:Tarrasch rule
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
First sentence[edit]
The first sentecne of the article has been changed to say that the Tarrasch rule applies to certain endgames. Actually it applies to many endgames. It applies more often than not, I believe. Also, it is at least as applicable in middlegames. Do others agree with this? (Perhaps I overemphansised the few exceptions I found.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Tarrasch rule modification[edit]
In this article, as well as in the article Siegbert Tarrasch I find the following entry:
"Andrew Soltis quotes Tarrasch as saying "Always put the rook behind the pawn.... Except when it is incorrect to do so." (Soltis 1997:129)."
In fact, I found the text of the original modification by Tarrasch on this website: http://schachblaetter.de/?p=35 . It is in German however, but Tarrasch has written it in a very humorous and satirical style, rather unlike his usual writing. I recommend it to everybody with understanding of chess (and preferable German, but in any case you will understand much from his diagrams and the kind of exceptions that led him to modify his rule).
It turns out that Tarrasch's modification of the rule was inserted in the 4th edition of "Die moderne Schachpartie" (Leipzig 1924, page 419-424). This is mentioned in Kamm's Tarrasch biography on page 506-507 (pagenumbers from German edition) and is also explained in German on the website http://schachblaetter.de/?p=36 . --Sir48 11:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Importance rating[edit]
The Tarrasch rule is so widely cited and applicable to so many games that I think it should be rated at higher than "low importance". I'm changing it to "mid". If someone disagrees, then please change it (and explain). Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Mid importance is appropriate for this article. Quale 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Kantorovich / Streckner endgame is now (2016) back to being considered a DRAW.[edit]
The endgame with Rook + 4 vs Rook + 3 given as analyzed by Kantorovich, 1988, and J. Streckner, 2003, has been written as now "winning".
This is not true.
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual, 4th Edition, 2014, p 205 indicates that Pogosyan has found it to be a draw with 1...g5!! instead of 1...Rxf2? Several pages of detailed analysis then explains why it is now considered a draw.
This section needs to be updated.