[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item ⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]kevin wrote on 2010-05-20 UTCDoes I king have to be put in check before you can put him in checkmate? M Winther wrote on 2010-05-21 UTCNo, of course not. /Mats jake h. wrote on 2010-06-05 UTCpleasantly to-the-point, and very helpful...GREAT JOB!!! Anonymous wrote on 2010-07-10 UTCWith respect to an illegal move, my position is-if neither player observes the illegal move when it is make and the player who didn't make the illegal move touches his piece in the process of moving after the illegal move has been made, the game continues. Having said that, I believe that it is neither players' obligation to see an illegal move, and if they don't the game continues. This rule should apply especially when a player is in check and neither player see's it at the time, but observes it a move (or several moves later). With respect to resconstructing a poaition, this can only be done if both players agree the reconstructed position is the right one. David Derrick wrote on 2010-07-20 UTCIn the nearly five decades of playing just-for-fun chess, my biggest rewards have been teaching newcomers. This reward has been a doubled-edged sword in that all students eventually began to beat me -- regularly. (Which rather proves my mediocre game skills.) However, recently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find an answer: WHAT IS THE SITUATION WHEN A PAWN, ON ITS FIRST MOVE, TAKES THE OPTION OF THE TWO SPACES ADVANCE AND IN SO DOING MOVES ACROSS A SPACE THAT COULD HAVE WITNESSED ITS CAPTURE BY AN OPPOSING BISHOP? It is virtually an en passant situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a pawn has. (It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that far.) I would be greatly appreciative for your comments on this. DAVID DERRICK [email protected] Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-07-20 UTCHello David Derrick. You asked this question: ''[R]ecently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find an answer: WHAT IS THE SITUATION WHEN A PAWN, ON ITS FIRST MOVE, TAKES THE OPTION OF THE TWO SPACES ADVANCE AND IN SO DOING MOVES ACROSS A SPACE THAT COULD HAVE WITNESSED ITS CAPTURE BY AN OPPOSING BISHOP? It is virtually an en passant situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a pawn has. (It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that far.)'' En passant involves only pawns on both sides. While any piece could attack the space the pawn double-steps over, only another, enemy, pawn that attacks the first square of the double step may move into that first square and capture the pawn, which just advanced 2 squares, as if it had only moved one square. No piece in a standard game of chess may make en passant captures. Only pawns may capture or be captured en passant. Anonymous wrote on 2010-08-28 UTCIf a player erroniously announces he has the opponent in checkmate, is there a penalty? John Ayer wrote on 2010-08-31 UTCIf a player erroneously announces checkmate, he loses whatever time it takes to convince him of his error (if the game is actually being timed) and is subject to teasing thereafter. Hezekiah Barnes wrote on 2010-09-22 UTCI am having a difference of rules understanding with an opponent. I am under the impression that if a pawn has the option to capture an opponent it can not move forward to an empty space if you wish to move it at all. My opponent believes you can move that pawn forward, ignoring the opportunity to capture. Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-09-22 UTCHezekiah, your opponent is correct. No specific move is ever forced in chess unless it is the only possible way to get the king out of check. Phil Munyao wrote on 2010-10-21 UTCGood ★★★★Hi, I assume that the idea behind the online chess is that you are targeting an experienced type of players. However, I wish you had in mind young and new future players and, as such; Please add to the explanatory rules a thorough naming of the characters involved in the chess board. Thank you, P.T Anonymous wrote on 2010-12-28 UTCif moving a pawn to opponants g8 , can this then be promoted to a bishop , if so and the player already has a rook on white diaganals does the promoted new bishop re enter the game on g8 or f8 ? Also whats the quickest way to obtain opponants queen at the start of a game? Fergus Duniho wrote on 2010-12-28 UTCWhen a white Pawn reaches g8, it may promote to a Bishop. Whatever piece a Pawn promotes to, the new piece always replaces the Pawn on the space it moved to, not on another space. So the Bishop would go to g8. Assuming your opponent is trying to keep his Queen, the quickest way is to force an exchange of Queens or to allow your opponent to exchange his Queen for something more valuable, such as two Rooks. The latter might not be advisable, since you will lose the exchange. And even an even exchange is not advisable if you are behind. Even less advisable is to create a position in which a Queen sacrifice on your opponent's part would quickly lead to you being checkmated. This would quickly get you your opponent's Queen but at too high a cost. Remember that the object is to checkmate the King, not to capture the Queen, and capturing the Queen is worthwhile only as a means to this end. Assuming that you don't want to take the Queen at too high a cost, the most effective tactics for getting the Queen are to (1) skewer the King when the Queen is behind the King in the same line of attack, (2) fork the King and Queen, or (3) pin the Queen with a protected piece. When your opponent is forced to choose between protecting the King or the Queen, he will have to choose the King, and you can then take the Queen. Anonymous wrote on 2011-03-22 UTCGood ★★★★ Toriah Taylor wrote on 2011-10-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Dear Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender, I really loved the instructions it helped me so much I really appreciate you for making these instructions because I really wanted to play against my little sister(whos only ten!) and win instead of losing all of the time so I thank you again Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender for exposing me to the real world of chess!!!! Gabor Tardos wrote on 2012-03-18 UTCIn my native Hungary many elderly amateur players open the chess game with two legal moves - then black is to respond with two moves followed by standard rules thereafter. I know this is not allowed by the standard set of rules, but I wonder if this variant was ever popular in other countries or is it just a Hungarian thing. Ed wrote on 2012-03-19 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Dear Mr. Gabor: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think that this is a local feature of chess play that once prevailed in a number of locales in central Europe eastward. I seem to recall Murray in his _History of Chess_ proposing such a feature as evidence of an 'undercurrent' of Mongolization in western chess that would date from the time of the Golden Horde. He also posited the sway of chess clubs, I think, as the most effective instrument for these local customs disappearing, but clearly they endure in Hungary. Anonymous wrote on 2012-04-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Thank you so much! Fergus Duniho wrote on 2015-12-08 UTCTest comment. I replaced the Perl footer with a PHP footer based on the one I already had in the Play subdomain. Ben Reiniger wrote on 2015-12-09 UTCtest ' and " and / on game page comment also, < and > and & Kevin Pacey wrote on 2016-02-20 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Back rank or smothered checkmates, along with the large number of playable openings from the start position, and a nice average of 40 moves to a game, are some of the more pleasing peculiarities of standard chess that make it harder for other activities or board games of skill to compete. I tend to agree most with Dutch World Chess Champion Max Euwe's relative piece values for the pieces, i.e.: P=1; N=3.5; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10, noting that some authorites give K=4 for its fighting value (though naturally it cannot be traded), and also noting Horowitz (and others) rate a bishop as being microscopically better than a knight on average, and in both cases I tend to agree, too, so perhaps correct N to =3.49. Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-06-09 UTCFor what it's worth, here's the (very detailed) wikipedia entry on Computer chess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-07-20 UTCOn computer chess (or even human) piece valuations, a 'controversial variation of the Nimzo-Indian Defence' (according to Dutch Grandmaster Jan Timman in The Art of Chess Analysis, circa 1980, referring to 5...Nf6-e4 below) that I (as a master-level player) have liked to play as Black over the years just might illustrate an exception to giving a very significant bishop-pair bonus on an 8x8 board to the side possessing it, even when there appears to be no clear reason to make the exception. The variation in question goes 1.Pd2-d4 Ng6-f6 2.Pc2-c4 Pe7-e6 3.Nb1-c3 Bf8-b4 4.Pe2-e3 Pb7-b6 5.Ng1-e2 Nf6-e4 6.Qd1-c2 Bc8-b7 7.Pa2-a3 Bb4-c3(ch) 8.Ne2-c3 Ne4-c3 9.Qc2-c3 (see diagram below; note that nowadays in my games, some players prefer to give Black the bishop pair instead, by playing 6.Bc1-d2[!] - in either case there are some tiny factors going on in favour of either side, but these are not so easy to articulate, at least in a few words, even for master-level players; also note my 2008 book Encyclopedia of Chess Openings volume E, 4th edition gives the line as definitely slightly better for White ["+="] in either case, but my more modern chess database's human evaulation [i.e. that of 2015's Chess Assistant16] gives White only its usual symbolic edge ["+=/="] as in its more mainline openings' variations, also with the CA16 engine's evaluation as only 0.04 pawns in White's favour, in either case): H. G. Muller wrote on 2019-07-21 UTCPiece values are an average over all plausible positions anyway, furthermore based on the assumption that the value of an army is the sum of its parts. (Although the B-pair bonus strictly speaking already is an exception to that). So it is to be expected that in individual positions the performance is not as good as the standard value suggests. E.g. the value of a Bishop is commonly considered to be dependent on the shade the Pawns are on. And a Queen is more valuable when the opponent has poor King safety, so you can effectively double-move it via intermediate checks. What you show here is not evidence of that, however. That there is no obvious compensation doesn't mean there is no compensation. Apart from the Bishop-Knight imbalance, the position is quite asymmetric. So the absolute value of the position cannot really be attributed to material only. A better test would be to replace one of the white Bishops by a Knight, and then look how much the position scores on average. If white is then significantly worse you know it cannot be due to material, as that is perfectly balanced. Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-07-22 UTCHi H.G.: Chess Assistant16 doesn't provide the engine that it used for evaluations, regrettably. However I experimented in another way (though not as you would prefer), using Houdini3 (released 2012) as an engine instead. In the exact position in the line culminating with 9.Qc2-c3 that I gave, after some considerable time to look, Houdini3 evaluates the position as 0.15 (or "+=/="), somewhat better than the 0.04 of CA16's engine (as an aside, a disbelieving master friend dared me to play this line as Black against him in any tournament, back in the 1980s, and gallingly I lost the one time I obliged - in spite of previously winning a number of nice master-level games with it, at least sometimes attacking with queens on the board). I tried replacing the B on c1 with a White knight (a fairly lousy square for a Kt), and this time Houdini3 gave the position as -0.12 (or "=") after considerable time spent. I then tried looking at the same position but with the White knight on d2 (not a great square completely for a knight, either, but it allows White to develop at least a move faster, probably); in this case Houdini3 rated the position as exactly 0.00 (or "="). Note: replacing the Kt on d2 with a dark-squared White bishop gives a position Houdini3 evaluated as 0.17 (or "+=/="); White can formally develop all his pieces a move faster (probably), but he'll want to eventually improve the lot of that piece (White B) now on d2 - though that seems true if a White Kt were there, too. It may be worth noting that CA16's engine rates the Nimzo-Indian Defence (position after 3...Bf8-b4) as worth 0.07 (or "+=/=") for White, while Houdini3 gives it as 0.16 (or "+=/=") for White. CA16 considers the Nimzo-Indian complex of defences as numerically Black's best defence to 1.Pd2-d4 (i.e. with 'best' play). 25 comments displayed⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.