Enter Your Reply

In sum, on 8x8 there can be no opening R-a1 x R-a8 because of the
intervening Pawn rows, despite Rooks' 1400-year unprotection in the array.
Is one or another a fallacy?  Now Contigency Pawns initially are inert, but
capturable, and serve the purpose to separate all the pieces paired across,
not just Rooks. Once Rook has moved, C. Pawn-a2 instantly acquires her full normal power, and the same for all Pieces having to precede their
corresponding C. Pawn.  In fact, C. Pawns become stronger than f.i.d.e.
orthodox Pawns on account of the accompanying RANK OBLIGATION. Most
observers have been familiar with rank-two two-step since youth.  Actually, if free and clear ahead, options two-step from rank 2, three-step rank 3, and four-step rank 4 all obtain, along with the regular divergent one-step.  ''Divergent'' because of the move and capture divergence, now taken for granted, unique for Pawn.  Contingency Pawn too captures always one step diagonal.  Now 'square-e4' is likeliest to become occupied by opposing Knight from g8 to f6 to e4, as White 'Pawn e2-e4' is impossible until King has moved sometime later, either castling or one-stepping.  More symmetry holds than usual, matching Piece and Pawn, and Pawns can no longer seem to be loose cannons trying utmost to lead development.  No more the sitting to Chess and just pushing Pawn, in hope for the best, or least bad outcome. Over the board, literally touching Cont. Pawn in error is light matter, if and when she cannot anyway move yet.  [Incidentally, when player touches Knight at say h8 with his own-side pieces situated nearby at f7 and g6, what persistent
obligation can there be? None whatsoever.]