Talk:Pin (chess)

Anecdote
a french chessmaster i knew would say "zee pin win." Kingturtle 00:03 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Expressions
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)

Error in text
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)

Absolute pin - checking power of pinned piece
It's good that the Absolute pin section mentions "A piece pinned in this way can still give check or defend another piece from capture by the king." But I think it'd be worthwhile to elaborate on this rule with an example because a lot of beginners are confused by it. Maybe use the same diagram but with the white king on f3 instead, and say that even though the knight is pinned, White can't legally play Kf4. Leafhopper (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Partially-pinned pawns
I don't understand the recent edits concerning partially-pinned pawns. What is important about this, and what information is the reader intended to glean? It might be helpful to know if there is a reliable source from which these edits are drawn. Quale (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The 184.150.236.51 editor is trying to say a pawn can be pinned on a file (from making captures, but the pin is only relevant if the pawn has a capture available), & ditto (a pawn can be pinned on a diagonal from advancing forward, but only relevant if the pawn w/ otherwise not be blocked from moving forward). I think he sees a need to cover pawns being pinned in addition to pieces. --IHTS (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * How's this?: A pawn can be pinned along its file from capturing, and pinned along a diagonal from moving forward or capturing. --IHTS (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that explanation. I'm not sure this is important enough to be in the article.  Do we have a WP:RS that talks about this?  If chess writers haven't found it important enough to mention, then I don't think it's necessary in wikipedia either.  Quale (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, rmv'd. (At least some workable text if needs back.) --IHTS (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The "Lenin vs. Gorky, 1908" game might not be kosher.
There's chessgames.com link on the page. Here's the link with anchored link comment... Edit: I can't get quotations to work. Wikipedia formatting is awful - yeesh. It's ~2009 here and not 2019.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin vs Maxim Gorky (1908)

Sep-25-13 Infohunter:

I know I am joining the discussion several years late, but for whatever it might be worth, I have just discovered that this game is listed on p. 235 of the 1964 openings manual *Chess Openings: Theory and Practice* by I. A. Horowitz as having been played in 1960 as part of a radio match between the Deschna Chess Club (White) and the Lenin Chess Club (Black). The moves match from start to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllThatJazz2012 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

not true that pinned piece cannot move
The article says: “In chess, a pin is a situation brought on by an attacking piece in which a defending piece cannot move without exposing a more valuable defending piece on its other side to capture by the attacking piece.

This is incorrect. A pinned piece is one that blocks the king from check. A pinned piece cannot make a move that exposes the king to check, but it can make a move that does not expose the king to check. So whether a piece can move or not does not determine if the piece is pinned: a pinned knight can never move, a pinned rook or bishop can sometimes move, and a pinned queen can always move.

Further, I have been considering a capture to be a move, but with respect to being pinned, this cannot be said of a pawn. Depending on the circumstances, a pinned pawn can neither move nor capture…or can move but not capture…or can capture but not move…and there are a couple of bizarre twists involving pins and en passant captures which you might enjoy discovering for yourself, if that sort of thing appeals to you. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you read the article. The definition of pin is correct.  You are describing an absolute pin, which is one of the several kinds of pins.  Quale (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article. In the very first sentence it says that a pinned piece cannot move without exposing the king. But in some cases a pinned piece can move without exposing the king. In fact, a pinned queen always can. So "cannot move" is wrong, right? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. The very first sentence of the article does not include the word "king".  "Partial pin" describes the situation in which the safe movement of the pinned piece is restricted.  It can move within a line, but can't move off that line without exposing the more valuable piece.  Quale (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right about the king. I just naturally associate pins with checks and kings. I'm about to give up trying to explain this to you, but let me just say something else that occurred to me: these categories of partial, absolute, etc. simply do not exist in the chess world. Granted, Google hits can't tell the whole story, but consider these results...

chess pin  56,000,000 hits...

chess "partial pin" 762 hits...

chess "relative pin" 3,280 hits...

chess "absolute pin" 5,310 hits...

762 hits? On a net-wide scale, that's 0 hits. 71.162.113.226 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no point in prolonging this. Most of your specific observations about the mechanics of pins are accurate, but you are mistaken about the definition of pin.  If you check any book discussing chess tactics you will find the definition of pin given in this article is accurate.  Also you are mistaken about absolute, partial and relative pins.  Generally in chess writing there is no need to classify the type of pin as most commonly a specific position is being analyzed, and in all cases the nature of the pin is obvious simply by looking.  The term partial pin was made well known by Aaron Nimzovich in My System (1925).  Yasser Seirawan discuses absolute and relative pins in chapter 3 of Winning Chess Tactics, an elementary work.  This article definitely needs improved sourcing and inline cites.  Quale (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence
, as far as run-on sentence, if that's true (which it isn't), then your preferred sentence is equally "run-on" (i.e, no logical difference in that respect between "A pin is one of the most powerful tactics in chess in which a defending piece ...", and, "In chess, a pin is a tactic in which a defending piece ..."; to quote you, your preferred sentence nearly creates a run-on sentence and basically says pin is a tactic that ... pins). But it isn't true, following "in which" is sort of a def, that doesn't repeat word "pin". So methinks that criticism falls flat, is same as the orig wording, so the "run-on" argument is methinks bogus.

Re "one of the most powerful", WP is supposed to be driven by RSs. Hooper & Whyld, Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), p. 308: "pin, a situation in which [...] Of the basic elements that make up the tactical content of the game the pin is one of the most powerful." You wrote: The skewer is more powerful, um, your personal opinion is great, but essentially WP:OR. (And BTW, for what it's worth, OCC, p. 374: "skewer, a common stratagem; a line-piece [...]." [No mention of relative power.]) You wrote ... and I do not believe sourcing makes this due weight. Agree so far as lead sentence, but it does belong in the lead. Per MOS:LEADREL: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Again we're driven by sources, and Oxford CC is one of the best, and not out of date (significance of "pin" hasn't changed in two hundred years). --IHTS (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

✅ --IHTS (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Pin vs skewer
Isn't the shielded piece in a skewer usually more valuable than the king? True, the king would have to move out of the way, or a piece would have to block or capture the check, but the shielded piece is usually more powerful than the king. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)