Talk:Desperado (chess)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Examples are all strange
Well, I rm'd the first example since it was just a stalemate trap, not a desperado piece... only to see that all the examples are stalemate traps. Go ahead and shoot me down if I'm wrong, but a desperado piece is a piece which is exchanged off, but manages to do extra damage before being re-taken. It's not applicable to stalemate swindles. <eleland/talkedits> 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Oxford Companion to Chess gives two definitions - yours and the one in the article. I've restored the deleted material, but the article should also give the other definition. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another example
Another example of a desparato piece leading to a stalemate trap is Pein - de Firmian, Bermuda 1995, ref: Practical Endgame Play by Neil McDonald, but I think there are already enough examples in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That game is cheap. Pein must have been tired to fall for 55.g6? The game is available on chessgames.com, so I think I will cite that instead? Surely that's much more accessible to the reader than having to go out and buy a book. Krakatoa 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I decided to not add it since there are enough examples already. But add it if you think it should be there. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meaning of "desperado piece"
The way I remember it a desperado is one that's going to be lost anyway (desperado = lost all hope) and therefore does the maximum possible damage before it goes, rather than one which is determined to sacrifice itself. I also have a vague memory that desperado pieces in that sense are disproportionately involved in zwischenzugs, especially checks. Philcha (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you, the wording currently in the article is a little unusual. Also I think the title is a problem. Since a desperado is already always a piece, "desperado piece" is redundant and I don't think the phrase is ever used. (Desperado is a noun, not an adjective as this article seems to say.) Hooper&Whyld and Golombek both use the entry "desperado". I think the page should be moved to desperado (chess) to avoid the disambiguation at desperado. (As a point of possible interest, Golombek gives only the first definition of desperado and not the stalemate-related usage. This agrees with my own experience as I had never encountered desperado used in that second stalemate-related way given by Hooper&Whyld.) Quale (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Good point, that is a common usage. Even in this case I don't think desperado is an adjective. It might be a compound noun, but I'm not a grammar theory person. Either way "desperado piece" doesn't seem unreasonable when viewed that way, although it still seems a little troublesome to me. We start "A desperado piece is a piece ..." whereas Hooper&Whyld start "'desperado, a piece, en prise or trapped, ..." and Golombek starts "DESPERADO A piece which, ...". Plugging in our "desperdo piece" in to either definition would logically lead to "A desperado piece is a piece piece ...". Our article title strongly suggests that "desperado" can't stand on its own without modifiying something or being part of a compound, but this isn't the case. Quale (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I agree with move to Desperado (chess). The word is a noun, not an adjective, as someone correctly stated above. Bubba73 (talk), 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Does anyone object to a move to Desperado (chess)? Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
