Its good to keep in mind that a knight can do a king queen fork or a king/piece for if the queen/piece is on any of this squares. See image:
wtf are you talking about man
What I am saying is the queen being in any of those squares in relation to the king you can put a knight somewhere that going to fork them...I thought that was clear.
Dude I still do not get what you are talking about.
You must be joking!
What #1 means is that if the white king is on the square it is on in the diagram, and a white queen, rook, bishop, or pawn is on any one of the squares marked with a white queen, a black knight on the right square can fork the two.
Note that the squares two diagonal steps away from the king have no queens, this is because a knight cannot travel two diagonal steps in two moves, and equivalently a fork is not possible.
I hope this makes it more clear.
Note that the squares two diagonal steps away from the king have no queens, this is because a knight cannot travel two diagonal steps in two moves, and equivalently a fork is not possible.
I hope this makes it more clear.
Lol!
I rather use my method:
Don't let the king and the queen/rook on the same square color when the opponent's knight is around. Particularly in bullet game
I rather use my method:
Don't let the king and the queen/rook on the same square color when the opponent's knight is around. Particularly in bullet game
Seriously: why there are relatively many forks people fall for...
Not few squares are directly attacked by the knight. Fine, you knew that. You can only use the squares in-between; but many of those are attacked by the very next knight moves. So the network is relatively fine-woven for the next move, a large part of the squares are directly or indirectly not usable. A wildly hopping knight (or even two) are hardly supervisable in a short period.
If you were unaware previously - now you know. :)
Not few squares are directly attacked by the knight. Fine, you knew that. You can only use the squares in-between; but many of those are attacked by the very next knight moves. So the network is relatively fine-woven for the next move, a large part of the squares are directly or indirectly not usable. A wildly hopping knight (or even two) are hardly supervisable in a short period.
If you were unaware previously - now you know. :)
Another useful 'trick' especially for rapid chess is knight opposition. A king that's separated by one diagonal from a knight has a sort of opposition against that knight. It will take it at least 3 moves to be able to give a check to the king. For instance a king on e4 has a 'knight opposition' against a knight on g6. Pretty useful in those hectic time scramble endgames with a rampaging knight. Intuition is to attack the knight, but it's often better to instead take the knight opposition against it and suddenly it's not such a rampaging piece anymore!
#9, it‘s the „Alfil“ distance, the ancient alfil moved that way.
It‘s rather a static feature to avoid annoyance but it doesn’t help very much entering a position with the king. It works two squares away, the critical squares are closer. :D
It‘s rather a static feature to avoid annoyance but it doesn’t help very much entering a position with the king. It works two squares away, the critical squares are closer. :D
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.