![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Aren't there some opening traps that involve queen forks that would make a good example. ... I've had both of these happen to me:
If nobody has a ready example, I'll try to dig one up... Jeff 18:24 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
i'm not really into chess algebra, but shouldn't it be Nd2 instead of Nd3 -- the knight is on f3, so he can't move along line 3 can't he?
Besides, it is perhaps not impossible that after a king queen fork, you don't loose your queen. This happens when moving your king opens the way for a piece that checks the other king. --Selach 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Black's pawn fork isn't mentioned in the lead image caption. Doing so would make it even longer, so perhaps those three pieces should be removed altogether? —JAO • T • C 04:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if "undefended" is proper chess terminology; by "piece A defends piece B", I mean that if B were taken by piece C, then A would be able to take C immediately. Is it considered a fork when one or both of the attackable pieces is being defended? Is there separate terminology for when one or both of the attackable pieces is defended? If so, the intro should mention them, because they would be closely related to forking.--Danielx (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the caption to the first diagram as discussed on the Chess project page.
(It is particularly effective to fork a king and another piece: the rules require immediate attention to a check to the king.) Black cannot choose to defend another piece, nor can he make an intermediate move (zwischenzug) to complicate the situation; the king must move, after which White can capture the rook. In return, ... . But White can escape loss of material, since after Black's king moves out of check, one of the rooks can deliver check again, allowing the other rook to escape next move, and possibly check the black king again, allowing the white knight to capture the black rook.
The reason is that the caption is too long. At this point, forks should be illustrated, but the caption went too far. I think the removed material about intermediate moves, etc, should be discussed in a section in the body, but not here and not with this example.
I also removed the white king from the diagram because this is not intended to represent an actual position - just show the forks.
I also don't see the need for the second diagram (which has now been removed). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
After all of the revisions, I think the article needs two things:
I think we should include a fork trick example in the opening, using the knight capture followed by pawn fork to regain the piece and eliminate a center pawn. The simplest example seems to come from the Three Knights Game: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5(?) 4. Nxe5 Nxe5 5. d4. There are similar examples where Black can use the fork trick in the Vienna Game, Two Knights Defense, and Bishop's Opening, but they seem to be messier as there are a lot of alternatives to explain. I'll take a crack at this if no one else does it, although I suspect someone else here could do a better job than I can. Quale (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Another simple opening example from the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 and 5. Nxe5 does not win a pawn because of the queen fork 5...Qd4. Quale (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
While we're making modest improvements in this article, I'd like to add a short section at the end showing the fork in a simple combination with another tactical device, such as a pin. I don't think any of our articles give good examples of how tactics are usually applied in practice, and this would end the article with a slightly more complicated example. Pachman provides some good examples, so I think I could borrow one from him. There are many other possible sources too. Again if someone is ambitious enough to take this one themselves, I'm lazy enough to be very happy to let you do it. Quale (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, enticement is a very common tactical device used with the fork. Frequently a fork is set up by luring a defender to a vulnerable square. The fork trick could be considered an example. Quale (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I think Bubba's K+Q vs R idea is probably right/good. There already seems to be enough emphasis on forks from knights, but, I did find this do you think it has value here (this is taking right out of the source [Soltis book] w/o any substantive changes) ...
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | ||
8 | ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | 8 | |||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
"Now, with 39.Bd4, Black still had to prove he had a win, but Alekhine makes 'another terrible move.' 39. Ba3? e5! Black polishes off the game quickly after this because of the knight forks and the activity of his K. For example, 40.fxe5 Ndxe5+ 41.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 42.Ke4 Ke6 should be an easy win, e.g. 43.Bc5 Nb4 44.h4 Nf6+ 45.Kd4 (else 55...Kd5) Kf5 scooping up the kingside pawns. 40. Ke3 Ke6 41. Bb2 Kd5 42. Nh4 Nb6! 43. Bc1 Nc4+ 44. Kf2 Nb4! Threatening another N-fork. The key point of Black's maneuver is that 55...Na2 will grease the path of the b-pawn. White will not even get a chance to sacrifice a piece for it if the pawn gets to the sixth rank. The game proceeded 45. Ke2 Na2 46. Bd2 b4 47. fxe5 b3 48. Kd1 Nxe5! There was a last Alekhine trap in 48...b2? 49.Kc2 Nxd2 50.Kxb2 Nb4 51.Kc3 forking the pieces. But Black's move threatened ...Kd5–c4–d3 or ...Ne5–d3–f2+ followed by ...b2. Alekhine tried 49. Ng2 Ke4 50. h4 Nd3 51.Ba5 Nb2+ and resigned because 52.Ke2 Nc4! would either queen the pawn or win the white B."
Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I've often heard these described as "forking pieces". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Has anyone ever seen the terms absolute fork or relative fork used in real chess literature? These were added 100% in good faith, but I don't find the single source provided (https://www.chess-game-strategies.com/chess-fork.html) to be very compelling. Quale (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I made this graphics.
It shows combinations of forkable squares. The main insights are: 1. Two enemy pieces have to be on the same color. Most will know this but it will be useful for very new players. 2. There are two cases where being the same color are insufficient for "forkability". These are marked with exclamation marks.
Feel free to incorporate this graphics. Sorry about the color scheme. I know its not the prettiest and doesnt match the standard appearance on Wiki. I made it for myself but thought I might share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedZepaholic (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)