0
[FEN "2r1r1k1/5ppp/8/8/Q7/8/5PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1"]

The important square of e8 square is hanging. It is hanging because if white can take that square it's checkmate. Is this a hanging square tactic?

If the rook on Rook on c8 is deflected from the protection of e8, is it called a deflection tactic?

[FEN "6k1/3qb1pp/4p3/ppp1P3/8/2PP1Q2/PP4PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

Here, the important f8 square is not hanging, so white plays Qf7+ to deflect the king from protection of f8 square, thus leading to checkmate.

  • 1
    I've added the FEN tag so we can easily see the position you are talking about. There is no deflection. White to move plays RxR and QxR in any order and it is checkmate. Where do you think the deflection occurs? Or did you enter the wrong position, maybe miss out one or more pieces? – Brian Towers Aug 3 at 12:02
  • 1
    There is a mate in 1 threat on e8 square, but the rook on c8 defends it. So if it can be deflected mate is achieved. Rxc8+ move deflects the black rook from the defense of e8, because when Rxc8 is played by black, black rook no longer defends that square thus leading to checkmate. @BrianTowers – eguneys Aug 3 at 12:14
  • 1
    Or maybe it's a hanging square tactic, where the important e8 square is hanging, So white takes that square to deliver checkmate – eguneys Aug 3 at 12:19
  • 1
    I have never heard of a "hanging square" tactic. Hanging piece, yes, weak or undefended square, yes, but never hanging square. Can you give a link to something that explains what you mean? – Ian Bush Aug 3 at 15:50
  • @Ian Bush Perhaps the term "hanging sqaure" is a synonym for "weak or undefended sqaure?" Hanging, in chess terms, does mean undefended after all. – Rewan Demontay Aug 3 at 16:28
1

I haven't heard of the term "hanging square" before. But you're right that the c8-rook would be deflected (or "attracted") if it were taken away from defending the rook on e8.

0

For this answer, I'm going to assume that the term "hanging sqaure" refers to a sqaure that is udefended, or underdefended (weak.) This is in comparison with how a piece can be hanging, left undefended, or underdefended, which means that there are more attackers then defenders. While the term "hanging sqaure" seems to have little use, I am going to use it for the context of their answer.

For question number one, the square e8 underdefended (attacked twice, defended once against White's mating threat, which make it a "hanging square." If White takes it it, with 1. Rxe8, than 1... Rxe8 2. Qxe8# follows. This a tatic called "destroying the defender (or something)." In a sense, it is a "hanging square tatic," as with how a piece is overwhelmed and won, the e8 sqaure is overburdened, and White won it.

As to quetion number two, if a piece is deflected from preventing a threat by the use of another threat, it is indeed called deflection. Your example of the Black king being deflected from the protection of the f8 square leaves it a "hanging square," as it is now underdefended, allowing for a mate in two.

I suspect that there is some relation between deflection and "hanging square tatics."

Feel free to enlighten me about any flaws in the towels section below.

  • Rook on e8 is not a defender of e8 square, the rook on c8 is the defender which is deflected from protecting e8 by making it move to e8. A piece is not a defender of a square it is on. – eguneys Sep 28 at 15:40
  • @eguneys I never said that, least I don’t think so. – Rewan Demontay Sep 28 at 16:21
  • well you never "destroy" the defender, just deflect it. – eguneys Sep 28 at 16:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.