This sort of thing is what the Preface of the Laws of Chess is for:
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise
during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions.
Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it
should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying ...
As the old poem says:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of the rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Exactly the same principle applies in chess. ...
One amazing game I know that ends in a pawn mate in one called The Polish Immortal in which Black sacrifices all four minor pieces to win the game! The pawn does a double-step to give the mate.
[Title "Glucksberg-Miguel Najdorf, Warsaw Poland, 1929, The Polish Immortal"]
1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 d5 5.e3 c6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O ...
I'm not at all disagreeing with the existing answers - both sound. Indeed every pawn is a potential queen. However, one aspect of the question remaining is: why struggle for a pawn as opposed to a more decisive plan?
In the games that you are watching, if they are between capable and well-matched players, very often the game will be quite well balanced with ...
It's probably a trick problem with a promotion to a black knight.
Such promotions to the wrong colour are not allowed, and never were. In the official rules it is now specifically pointed out that the new piece has to have the same colour as the promoted pawn.
FIDE's laws of chess, Article 3.7 e:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting ...
From FIDE rules (3.7 e):
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘...
During round 9 of the Istanbul 2012 Chess Olympiads, at the Nakamura-Kramnik table of the USA vs Russia match, we've witnessed another one of those promotions to knight at move 62 by white.
The relevant position (white to play):
[fen "8/2P1k3/8/8/5p2/5KbB/3pp3/3N4 w - - 1 62"]
1. c8=N+ (1. Kxe2? f3+ 2. Kxf3 Bxc7)
We can see here that if
Here is one simple solution:
1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 e6 3.dxe6 f6 4.g4 g6 5.g5 Ne7 6.gxf6 Nd5 7.e4 Nc3 8.bxc3 Qd4 9.cxd4 b5 10.d5 b4 11.a3 c6 12.axb4 c5 13.bxc5 Bd6 14.cxd6 g5 15.h3 g4 16.hxg4 Rg8 17.f3 Rg5 18.f4 Rf5 19.gxf5 Na6 20.d4
More moves can be added to reach the exact position with no other pieces other than kings.
There is no loophole. Rules 3.7.1 to 3.7.4 allow pawns to move forwards along the same file, or diagonally forwards onto an adjacent file.
The only argument here seems to be that "forwards" is not explicitly defined but it is implicitly defined by 22.214.171.124 which beings with the following quote: "When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank ...
White intends to play c5, which will gain space on the queenside and severely cramp black's position (The b6 knight has no good square).
On the other hand, e5 weakens white's control over d5 and f5 (e.g. Black can then go ...Ne7-f5). Black could also take advantage of the weak c4 and d5 squares with ...Na5 and ...Bc6. Keeping the pawn on e4 seems better. ...
I disagree that it is primarily about development.
This is a very common theme, and it comes down to the fact that e5 is not easily defended by a pawn (aka "artificially isolated"). Bg4 soon will trade one of the pe5's defenders, and it will need constant watching. It is not a big deal that you will be trading the Bc8 on f3 since white already traded on c6 ...
Start with whatever and tune it.
That's how chess engine programming works - you start with some number, and then tune it. For example you start with -5, then create another version with -10. You get the two engines to play against each other, and the one that wins more often is the "correct" version that you keep.
Of course as pointed out by other ...
It's a mistake to view the pawns themselves as overextended targets that you might get to "pick off" as you say in your post. After all, Black's main objective with the pawn storm is probably to open up lines to attack your king, and so your snapping up such overextended pawns really only furthers Black's goal.
As already pointed out in comments in this ...
I believe the en passant rule is designed to cope with the fact that pawns do not move backwards, hence if the en passant rule did not exists you could have a lot of blocked positions, making play slower and probably more drawish.
Differently from pawns, pieces can move backwards, so the black Knight in your example still has the possibility to move ...
This is a good question, as much as some may be instinctively frustrated by it, because finding room for improvement in rulesets is useful and can prevent future issues where arbitration is required.
My understanding is that "front" is defined by the piece's colour, not it's rotational orientation. This is consistent with the definition of "last rank" in ...
According to Wikipedia:
"...it is a pawn that is behind a pawn of the same colour on an adjacent file and that cannot be advanced without loss of material, usually the backward pawn itself. In the diagram, the black pawn on the c6-square is backward."
"Pieces can become weak when they are devoted to protecting a backward pawn, since their obligation to ...
The question is extremely open, as these pawns may be moved for many reasons depending on the position you are facing. In a general sketch, you may consider five kind of a and h pawn moves:
To create some luft for the king, that is, avoid once and for all the back rank threats.
[FEN "r5k1/5ppp/8/8/8/8/5PPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 1"]
In this position, neither rook ...
e5 does nothing for you and helps your opponent. Why?
First, it does nothing for your development. Much better would be d3 which releases the c1 bishop and protects the e pawn. If your opponent plays de then you retake de and he is left with doubled isolated pawns on the c file and an isolated pawn on the a file. If he doesn't then exchange queens he also ...
No matter how a chess piece is shaped, FIDE rules do not define "front" or any other direction relative to the orientation of the piece.
Chess pieces do not have a front, rear, direction of advance, and so forth. Only the board has these.
You've given some good, very long-term reasons not to play e5. But in this position, dynamic considerations outweigh these long-term reasons.
Look again at the position: you have developed (if you have not encountered this term before, it means moving your pieces from their starting squares so they can participate in the game) two knights, a bishop, and ...
I would love to see the position; please add it to your question somehow (we can always edit it to look nice). However, there is no such rule. Either your computer doesn't implement captures en passant (improbable these days) or the capture was not valid for some other reason.
This is too complex to have straight principles. Of course there are some patterns that you are going to recognize during your improvement and there are also easy things. I'm going to mention a few at the end of this post. First of all, let me refer to positions cited by you.
Key is calculating, always, and this is great example. First thing you ...
I had never heard the term, but such pawns are very important for their contribution to certain mating patterns, the most famous of which would be Damiano's mate, which was included in Damiano's 1512 book Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de li partiti. Here's an archetypal example:
[FEN "5rk1/6pQ/6P1/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 1 1"]
With the exception of Hans Kmoch's attempt to give it a name, which never caught on (I have never seen anyone else use it anywhere), they really do not have a name that I have even seen.
I probably have seen this referred to mostly as "two opposing pawns", but that is really just English rather than a specific chess term.