I love it. Does anyone know of any moves in the game or strategies they can post?
the move "en passon" which is french for to pass (i think) is a good move in which if you are 2 rows in front of an enemies starting line of pawns and they move a pawn forward 2 places, you may take it as if it had only moved 1 place.
The move is called En passant, and means "in passing" or Pawn in Passing. The move has to be made subsequent to the initial move of the first pawn.
Chess may be the oldest game in the world that is still played today. I should know, I've been playing it for well over 3 decades.
There are lots of books that have opening and end-game strategies.
I enjoy playing chess when I have the time (and a willing opponent). It the strategy of the game that I enjoy - the challenge of needing to outwit your opponent to win.
I am not aware of the names of any specific strategies or moves, as I learnt by playing against friends when I was younger. I am familiar with the "En passant" move mentioned above, as well as the move where the King and Rook, if in their original positions, can pass each other (the King moves two places towards the Rook's original position and the Rook jumps to the other side of the King). I am not sure of the name of this move, though.
Eh, I've played chess a few times but have never really gotten into it that much. Normally I'd love strategy games, but I've been pampered too much by the randomly generated worlds, dozens of different units and quite often magic system of computer games.
I was actually under the impression Backgammon was somewhat older than chess (and is still played), but if you wanted to be broad simpler things like 'tag' or hunting games are probably even older than that.
I've been playing chess for a while. I'm a tournament player. To answer the post, there isn't one piece that is worse to lose. There is nothing set in chess. The value of a piece depends on position. For instance, there have been times where I have sacrificed my queen for a pawn because I know that if I do that it will open up a line to the king and I'll have mate is 6 moves or something.
That's called castling.
Myself, I start off with a Knight then the pawns so the Bishops can get out. Then after that it's just random for the game. I play the game with a lot of people over the years still have yet to win. I also have a chess game for my computer I play once in a while. When my little brother gets older I probably will teach him how to play.
I love chess, but I suck at it. I think it's the only game where that can happen. Fun to play, easy to get frustrated, but there's a certain feeling you get when you take your opponents piece; even if it's just a pawn.
Chess is one of the few games that you can suck at and still enjoy? Lol; loosing a chess game ruins my day, especially if a tournament is on the line! When you get down to a serious match, and you invest 3-4 hours into it, and you loose, it's highly disappointing. But I sort of see what you're saying. I still have fun playing sports when I loose. But that's probably because I suck at sports so I'm used to loosing at every sport I play.
Chess is war.
But it's a nice war.
It can be at any speed, over years, or five minute blitzes.
It allows you a chance to win even though you might not be the strongest, in brains and brawn.
Like other games, Luck definitely still plays a factor. (unless you're against an uber master)
And best of all, IMO, there are no casualties, 'cept the loser's pride of course ^^.
The Knight is the most valuable piece in Midgame due to the fact that it can skip squares and pieces, and that there are two of them. In Endgame, however, they are bloody useless...Queens/Rooks/Bishops reign then!
Um, no. The only luck in the game is which player plays which colour (IIRC, white gives a small statistical advantage). Other than that there are are no randomly determined components to chess, ergo, all skill.
I consider your opponent making a dumb move, luck.
I would have to say that luck plays a slight factor, because your opponent can make a mistake. But the game definitely isn't based off of luck; it's based off of skill. Luck just occasionally plays a slight roll.
Yeah if I ever make a dumb move then immediately realize what i just did...I consider it lucky for my opponent.
You lose a lot of control over the board by losing a queen - but some of my best games were won when my queen was taken away. For some reason losing the queen made room for other tactics and forced me to utilize other pieces especially the knights and rooks.
Love chess... but it's been months since I've played.
If your opponent makes a dumb move, that's not luck. That's your opponent's lack of skill. Not anything to do with chance.
Not necessarily. Everyone makes mistakes, even masters. I've made mistakes when the game is on the line. There is an incredible amount of psychology in the game - especially when it matters and sometimes it doesn't come down to who is more skillful, but who is more psychologically able to stay in the game.
Obviously, it's got to be the queen. I mean, which other piece can moive diagonally, horizontally and vertically for as many desired spaces?
Queen is certainly more useful than the rook or bishop, but the knight is often great for cornering your opponent's king. One rook and one knight can win a game! Two knights are always good to have, and they can easily dart round your opponent's side of the board taking pieces and "Check"ing your opponent. The knight is an aggressive piece, and what's more, there are two of them. Easy to send out, easy to retreat, very tricky to track. They become less useful in the later game when there are fewer pieces on the board, but still are a very handy piece to have.
Using one rook and one knight to win a game is harder than just using the rook and king. It is true that the rook and knight can mate, but it is impossible to force it. Your opponent would have to move into the corner and let you do it. Whenever it comes down it my rook, knight, and king against a king, I just ditch the knight and use the rook and king. The knight just gets in the way. But you're right about two knights being powerful because they're easy to send out and they get worse in the endgame. That's why knights are better than bishops in closed positions but in open positions bishops dominate.
IMO, the worst piece to lose is the Queen, because it can move any amount of spaces and in any direction. So, once you lose that piece, you lose a lot of your fluency and strategy.
As for strategies, I just usually pressure from the start and attack when I have a good chance. I usually always beat my dad. haha. And he's pretty good.
The queen may have the most coverage, but it is very predictable. Knights, on the other hand, have specific yet confusing patterns of movement that can trump you the next move. If the Knight is in the right place, you have to look at 8 squares across the board. Sounds easy, but I honestly sometimes have trouble tracking Knights than Queens.
That's true but don't forget one thing ... if a Knight has to be used to protect one's king, it has no chance and no scope as well. Here's where the Queen shows superiority.The Queen can both attack and defend and in Chess, that is the key.