Talk:Skewer (chess)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Skewer (chess) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

disputed[edit]

The queen on the left can just move to the king's file, forcing the bishop not to capture the knight. Moreover and therefore, it is possible to be skewered without losing material, by forcing the other into check. lysdexia 04:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The rook could still capture the knight though. Gzornenplatz 04:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing by "king's file" you mean the file on which the king stands now (ie, the f-file) rather than the file on which the king stands at the beginning of the game (ie, the e-file). Anyway, I think you have a point: Gzornenplatz is right, of course, that after ...Qf5 white can play Rxb7 winning the knight anyway, but then that's not really thanks to the skewer - it's more a simple removal of the guard. I'll try to tweak the example so it's a "purer" demonstration of a relative skewer. And you're right about "the victim of a skewer cannot avoid losing material" being too strong. I'll change that. --Camembert

"Reverse pin" nomenclature?[edit]

The article currently claims that "A skewer is sometimes described as a "reverse pin"". This statement seems to have been in the article from the very start (at least, after it stopped being a redirect to Chess terminology, which didn't mention this at the time), and I can't find any sources pre-article-creation that describe it as such (certainly it's not referred to as that in Reinfeld's 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations, the citation for the sentence after). Can anyone find a pre-article-creation source for this statement (to ensure that this doesn't end up as WP:CITOGENESIS)? Edderiofer (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "described as a reverse pin" might be true, since this is distinct from "called a reverse pin" (= nomenclature) which I think would be false. "Reverse pin" is a possible description of a skewer, but it is not an alternative name for it. Seirawan (2005) Winning Chess Tactics, p. 91 says "A skewer has been likened to a pin in reverse." I have a couple other chess dictionaries that describe the skewer as "the opposite of the pin". Even with this bolding reverse pin in this article is not appropriate. I'll make an adjustment, but feel free to tweak it if you think it should be better. Quale (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the shielded piece in a pin 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 would probably be more powerful. 174.103.211.189 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I assume you mean "in a skewer".

2. No piece is more valuable than the king, since losing the king loses the game.

3. One can skewer a king and a pawn (which is usually less-powerful than a king).

4. One can also create a skewer that doesn't involve the king.

5. None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, which is about whether the phrase "reverse pin" has ever been used, in chess publications, as an alternative name for a skewer.

Edderiofer (talk) 03:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the queen more valuable than the king (at least typically), since she can more more. True, the king would have to move unless a different piece could block or capture the skewer, but in this case wouldn't the less powerful piece be in front, since the back piece is the queen? 74.135.194.87 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]