Talk:Pin (chess)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| High | This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale. |
a french chessmaster i knew would say "zee pin win." Kingturtle 00:03 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
I've taken this out:
- A piece can also said to be pinned if it cannot move from its current position without being attacked, or it lacks a square to move to.
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
- Well, on the one hand, usually I expect an encyclopedia to be in a conservative print style. On the other hand, you and I both know that the arguments against indefinite (a.k.a. singular) "they" are hogwash. The language needs, and more particularly this article needs, some construction to do that job. Since indefinite "he" is handicapped by being sexist and the Spivak pronouns are handicapped by lack of precedent, my money is on "they". Give it another century to play out, you'll see. So think of your choice of pronoun as being bold. eritain 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
This article give two contradictory definitions of relative and absolute pins.
These paragraphs:
- In the diagram to the right, the black knight is pinned to the black king by the white bishop. This is an absolute pin, because the rules forbid moving the knight, as it would expose the king to attack.
- The black rook is pinning the white knight to the white queen. This is a relative pin; White is unlikely to move the knight because this would lose the queen, a far more valuable piece—but White still has the choice.
Contradict this paragraph:
- In cases of an Absolute Pin, the pinned piece cannot move at all without exposing its valued piece to attack, thus that being the King. In cases of a Relative Pin, the pinned piece can still move along the line of linear attack (such as along a file, rank, or diagonal), but were it to move off this line of attack, the valued piece would be exposed to the attack.
I don’t know which is correct.24.32.101.168 04:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The diagrams are correct, the main article text is wrong. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll fix it. 84.70.166.114 13:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. 84.70.166.114 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
