Talk:Fortress (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. | |
 |
This article is in the list of Selected articles that are shown on the Portal:Chess. |
We may want to add Smirin-Hiarcs 8, where Smirin's 48.Bb4! offered Black the choice of an opposite-colored bishop ending or a bishop v. knight ending where Smirin had an impenetrable fortress. Krakatoa 01:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think so too. I think it is a better, or at least more typical example from an actual game than the one in there currently from an actual game. Bubba73 (talk), 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should defense perimeter be merged into this article?
I have tagged defense perimeter for a possible merge into this article. A Google search -- chess "defense perimeter" -- seems to bring up relevant hits only from (a) the Wikipedia article itself and (b) references to Soltis' book "The Art of Defense in Chess." [1] The term seems to be Soltis' coinage, one not used by other chess writers. Although Soltis' book was published over 20 years ago -- Amazon shows that the paperback was published Sept. '86 [2] and I know the hardcover came out before that -- other writers outside of Wikipedia don't seem to have followed Soltis' lead. I am a chess master, pretty well-read, and was unfamiliar with the term before I saw it in Wikipedia (even though I read the hardcover of Soltis' book cover-to-cover around 25 years ago). "Defense perimeter" is at a minimum very similar to "fortress," and is a short article -- it was one paragraph, with one reference, before I decided that a problem I'd put into fortress (chess) should be moved into defense perimeter if the definition in the latter article was correct. In short, I suggest merging "defense perimeter" into "fortress chess," with a redirect at the former and a mention of Soltis' terminology in the latter. Thoughts? Krakatoa 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Defensive perimeter is a special case of a fortress, so I favor making defensive perimeter a section under Fortress. Bubba73 (talk), 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. I haven't seen the term "defense perimeter" either. Seems like nobody else followed Soltis' lead. youngvalter 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Everyone who's responded has agreed on a merge, and no one has spoken against it, so I've gone ahead and merged the d.p. article into the fortress article. I hope no one has a problem with that. Krakatoa 04:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree. I haven't seen the term "defense perimeter" either. Seems like nobody else followed Soltis' lead. youngvalter 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The diagram is inaccurate?
To my limited chess knowledge, it seems like the diagram on the right of the page is incorrect. The accompanying text states that the black king can shuffle between a8 and b7 "indefinitely". Wrong, if it's white's turn, play and win: kb4, kb7; ka5, ka8; ka6, 1-0. This can be avoided by black by moving to column c, but this results in a shiny new queen for white and black will likely still lose. Am I missing something? 69.136.195.152 (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
