Chess Oxymoron's • page 1/2 • Off-Topic Discussion • lichess.org

There are many oxymoron's... Like Jumbo-shrimp...Join the march against regimentation...Bittersweet. Anyone know of any chess oxymoron's ? Maybe we can make some up. :]

Skittle-Head

edited

#2

I just thought of one - "Underpromotion" :]

CM Sarg0n

#3

In Phisher-Ransom-Chess (chess960) the long castling can be shorter than the short castling.

Openings: some „defenses“ are „attacks“ and „Open games“ can be closed and vice versa.

In Phisher-Ransom-Chess (chess960) the long castling can be shorter than the short castling. Openings: some „defenses“ are „attacks“ and „Open games“ can be closed and vice versa.

clousems

#4

@Sarg0n : LOLed at "Phisher Ransom Chess"
@Skittle-Head : The word Pawn is derived from the Norman word "poun," which itself is derived from the Latin word for infantryman. Traditionally, forces would rarely bother with capturing the opponents foot soldiers (unless the capturers were Aztecs or Toltecs, who would often go to war for the sole purpose of capturing people for ritual sacrifices), as a captive would need to be fed and housed, and capturing would be reserved for nobility, as they could be coerced into paying a ransom. While I am not sure if it counts as a full oxymoron (at least by the modern connotation of the word), the term "pawn capture" is thus, at the very least, both counter-intuitive and anachronistic.
Incidentally, the word "oxymoron" is itself an oxymoron. It is derived from the Greek words "Oxys," meaning sharp, and "Moros," meaning foolish.

@Sarg0n : LOLed at "Phisher Ransom Chess" @Skittle-Head : The word Pawn is derived from the Norman word "poun," which itself is derived from the Latin word for infantryman. Traditionally, forces would rarely bother with capturing the opponents foot soldiers (unless the capturers were Aztecs or Toltecs, who would often go to war for the sole purpose of capturing people for ritual sacrifices), as a captive would need to be fed and housed, and capturing would be reserved for nobility, as they could be coerced into paying a ransom. While I am not sure if it counts as a full oxymoron (at least by the modern connotation of the word), the term "pawn capture" is thus, at the very least, both counter-intuitive and anachronistic. Incidentally, the word "oxymoron" is itself an oxymoron. It is derived from the Greek words "Oxys," meaning sharp, and "Moros," meaning foolish.

Pawn-rush

Deleted

"Knight fork." If we all remember correctly they used pole arms and swords. I can't ever imagine Knights bringing forks to battle to eat the most to win. At least not normally.

You got "Back ranked." It should be called "Front ranked" since your opponent actually when it through the front.

"Backwards Pawns." Usually they're always the frontline pieces. The only way it's truly backwards is when there's insufficient material to capture pawns.

"Knight fork." If we all remember correctly they used pole arms and swords. I can't ever imagine Knights bringing forks to battle to eat the most to win. At least not normally. You got "Back ranked." It should be called "Front ranked" since your opponent actually when it through the front. "Backwards Pawns." Usually they're always the frontline pieces. The only way it's truly backwards is when there's insufficient material to capture pawns.

sparowe14

#8

It's not an oxymoron, but I always thought it ironic to say one piece is "protecting" another when the "protected" piece can actually be captured at any time, it is merely the threat of retaliation that discourages the opponent from doing so. Imagine a soldier being told, in a dangerous position, "well, you are really protected, because if they kill you then we can kill one of them, or maybe more, so we're figuring they won't kill you." I would not feel very protected.

Along the same lines, it's strange how after 1 e4 d5, GMs and analysts will say that the black d-pawn is "attacking" the white e-pawn. Really? So offering yourself up to be captured is "attacking"? I admit it is reminiscent of Pickett's Charge or the assaults at Cold Harbor or Fredericksburg in our civil war, when marching forward to get killed was called an attack.
Maybe we could say the d-pawn "challenges" the e-pawn by saying "okay you can capture me, and if you don't then on the next turn I can capture you?"

It's not an oxymoron, but I always thought it ironic to say one piece is "protecting" another when the "protected" piece can actually be captured at any time, it is merely the threat of retaliation that discourages the opponent from doing so. Imagine a soldier being told, in a dangerous position, "well, you are really protected, because if they kill you then we can kill one of them, or maybe more, so we're figuring they won't kill you." I would not feel very protected. Along the same lines, it's strange how after 1 e4 d5, GMs and analysts will say that the black d-pawn is "attacking" the white e-pawn. Really? So offering yourself up to be captured is "attacking"? I admit it is reminiscent of Pickett's Charge or the assaults at Cold Harbor or Fredericksburg in our civil war, when marching forward to get killed was called an attack. Maybe we could say the d-pawn "challenges" the e-pawn by saying "okay you can capture me, and if you don't then on the next turn I can capture you?"

clousems

#9

@sparowe14 : In light of your second paragraph, I recommend that we rename this opening the "Burnside Defense"

sparowe14

#10

Yes, nice touch. Or, jumping forward to World War I, we could call such a move "Going Over the Top."