![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||
|
a french chessmaster i knew would say "zee pin win." Kingturtle 00:03 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
I've taken this out:
I really don't think that the term "pin" is used to mean this. I may, of course, be wrong, but I'd like to see an example of this usage from a well known writer if it's to go back in. In an endgame study, I think we would say that such a piece is "dominated" rather than "pinned" (not that that necessarily means a lot—problems have a language all of their own). --Camembert
A note on capitalisation of "black" and "white" in this an other chess articles: when the words are standing in for the names of players (even indeterminate players), they should be capitalised; at other times, they should not. For example: you would write "White captured the black rook"; or "the black rook was taken by White's bishop". Most reasonably competent chess books do it this way, and I think we should too.
By the way, I don't like these "Black moves one's pawn"-type formations recently introduced here and in a couple of other articles. I suppose they were put in to eliminate the gender-specific "his", but it just sounds awful to me: it sounds like this other chap, "Black", is moving my pawns. I've replaced the "one"s with other things, sometimes a gender-neutral singular they (I hope nobody is grammatically squeamish enough to run screaming from them—I think they're an improvement over the "ones", at least). --Camembert
This article give two contradictory definitions of relative and absolute pins.
These paragraphs:
Contradict this paragraph:
I don’t know which is correct.24.32.101.168 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's good that the Absolute pin section mentions "A piece pinned in this way can still give check or defend another piece from capture by the king." But I think it'd be worthwhile to elaborate on this rule with an example because a lot of beginners are confused by it. Maybe use the same diagram but with the white king on f3 instead, and say that even though the knight is pinned, White can't legally play Kf4. Leafhopper (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the recent edits concerning partially-pinned pawns. What is important about this, and what information is the reader intended to glean? It might be helpful to know if there is a reliable source from which these edits are drawn. Quale (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
There's chessgames.com link on the page. Here's the link with anchored link comment... Edit: I can't get quotations to work. Wikipedia formatting is awful - yeesh. It's ~2009 here and not 2019.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin vs Maxim Gorky (1908)
Sep-25-13 Infohunter:
I know I am joining the discussion several years late, but for whatever it might be worth, I have just discovered that this game is listed on p. 235 of the 1964 openings manual *Chess Openings: Theory and Practice* by I. A. Horowitz as having been played in 1960 as part of a radio match between the Deschna Chess Club (White) and the Lenin Chess Club (Black). The moves match from start to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The article says: “In chess, a pin is a situation brought on by an attacking piece in which a defending piece cannot move without exposing a more valuable defending piece on its other side to capture by the attacking piece.
This is incorrect. A pinned piece is one that blocks the king from check. A pinned piece cannot make a move that exposes the king to check, but it can make a move that does not expose the king to check. So whether a piece can move or not does not determine if the piece is pinned: a pinned knight can never move, a pinned rook or bishop can sometimes move, and a pinned queen can always move.
Further, I have been considering a capture to be a move, but with respect to being pinned, this cannot be said of a pawn. Depending on the circumstances, a pinned pawn can neither move nor capture…or can move but not capture…or can capture but not move…and there are a couple of bizarre twists involving pins and en passant captures which you might enjoy discovering for yourself, if that sort of thing appeals to you. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I read the article. In the very first sentence it says that a pinned piece cannot move without exposing the king. But in some cases a pinned piece can move without exposing the king. In fact, a pinned queen always can. So "cannot move" is wrong, right? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
You're right about the king. I just naturally associate pins with checks and kings. I'm about to give up trying to explain this to you, but let me just say something else that occurred to me: these categories of partial, absolute, etc. simply do not exist in the chess world. Granted, Google hits can't tell the whole story, but consider these results...
chess pin 56,000,000 hits...
chess "partial pin" 762 hits...
chess "relative pin" 3,280 hits...
chess "absolute pin" 5,310 hits...
762 hits? On a net-wide scale, that's 0 hits. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Jasper Deng, as far as run-on sentence, if that's true (which it isn't), then your preferred sentence is equally "run-on" (i.e, no logical difference in that respect between "A pin is one of the most powerful tactics in chess in which a defending piece ...", and, "In chess, a pin is a tactic in which a defending piece ..."; to quote you, your preferred sentence nearly creates a run-on sentence and basically says pin is a tactic that ... pins). But it isn't true, following "in which" is sort of a def, that doesn't repeat word "pin". So methinks that criticism falls flat, is same as the orig wording, so the "run-on" argument is methinks bogus.
Re "one of the most powerful", WP is supposed to be driven by RSs. Hooper & Whyld, Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), p. 308:
pin, a situation in which [...] Of the basic elements that make up the tactical content of the game the pin is one of the most powerful.
You wrote: The skewer is more powerful, um, your personal opinion is great, but essentially WP:OR. (And BTW, for what it's worth, OCC, p. 374: "skewer, a common stratagem; a line-piece [...]." [No mention of relative power.]) You wrote ... and I do not believe sourcing makes this due weight. Agree so far as lead sentence, but it does belong in the lead. Per MOS:LEADREL: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Again we're driven by sources, and Oxford CC is one of the best, and not out of date (significance of "pin" hasn't changed in two hundred years). --IHTS (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Done --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the shielded piece in a skewer usually more valuable than the king? True, the king would have to move out of the way, or a piece would have to block or capture the check, but the shielded piece is usually more powerful than the king. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)