Mixing
How to describe two knights defending each other?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How to describe two knights defending each other?
Linked knights?
Doubled knights?
In (is "in" the right preposition?) Chinese Chess, two 马（horse/knight） protecting one another is quite common, and there is a standard terminology "连环马".
knights terminology
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How to describe two knights defending each other?
Linked knights?
Doubled knights?
In (is "in" the right preposition?) Chinese Chess, two 马（horse/knight） protecting one another is quite common, and there is a standard terminology "连环马".
knights terminology
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
How to describe two knights defending each other?
Linked knights?
Doubled knights?
In (is "in" the right preposition?) Chinese Chess, two 马（horse/knight） protecting one another is quite common, and there is a standard terminology "连环马".
knights terminology
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
How to describe two knights defending each other?
Linked knights?
Doubled knights?
In (is "in" the right preposition?) Chinese Chess, two 马（horse/knight） protecting one another is quite common, and there is a standard terminology "连环马".
knights terminology
knights terminology
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 52 mins ago
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
asked 6 hours ago
Zhang Jian
1064
1064
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Zhang Jian is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there's no standard terminology for this. It is usually not the best configuration for two knights; they are stronger when positioned side by side, so that they cover a lot of squares in the same area.
If I had to describe the situation, I'd go for something like 'mutually protecting knights'.
There's a related concept which is called the 'superfluous piece' or 'extra piece', which most often happens with two knights. One of them occupies an outpost, and the other one is basically doing nothing but waiting to recapture on or move to that square when the first one is exchanged.
Here, Black played 11... Ne8, to make the c3 knight superfluous.
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I've seen the term "redundant knights". In general, redundant pieces are pieces can get in each other's way. Here's a quote I could find about the general principle, but not specifically about knights:
Interestingly, two of Lasker’s other points were:
• The principle of
redundancy: Two pieces that move the same way on the same squares can
easily get in each other’s way, while two pieces that never get in
each other’s way – like two bishops – are better coordinated. This was
verified by computer analysis by Larry Kaufman 60 years later! Larry’s
important contributions are noted in several places in this book.
Heisman, Dan. Elements of Positional Evaluation (Kindle Locations 1035-1039). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.
Googling specifically for "redundant knights" I found this (also by Dan Heisman):
For example, he calls two knights that guard each other “redundant knights†and notes that this is usually a weak setup.
https://chesscafe.com/coordination/
I don't have access to that article as I'm not a chesscafe.com member so I don't even know who "he" is (maybe Lasker or Kaufman?), so if anyone with full access to that article can provide more context, I'll happily edit my answer.
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there's no standard terminology for this. It is usually not the best configuration for two knights; they are stronger when positioned side by side, so that they cover a lot of squares in the same area.
If I had to describe the situation, I'd go for something like 'mutually protecting knights'.
There's a related concept which is called the 'superfluous piece' or 'extra piece', which most often happens with two knights. One of them occupies an outpost, and the other one is basically doing nothing but waiting to recapture on or move to that square when the first one is exchanged.
Here, Black played 11... Ne8, to make the c3 knight superfluous.
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there's no standard terminology for this. It is usually not the best configuration for two knights; they are stronger when positioned side by side, so that they cover a lot of squares in the same area.
If I had to describe the situation, I'd go for something like 'mutually protecting knights'.
There's a related concept which is called the 'superfluous piece' or 'extra piece', which most often happens with two knights. One of them occupies an outpost, and the other one is basically doing nothing but waiting to recapture on or move to that square when the first one is exchanged.
Here, Black played 11... Ne8, to make the c3 knight superfluous.
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
As far as I know, there's no standard terminology for this. It is usually not the best configuration for two knights; they are stronger when positioned side by side, so that they cover a lot of squares in the same area.
If I had to describe the situation, I'd go for something like 'mutually protecting knights'.
There's a related concept which is called the 'superfluous piece' or 'extra piece', which most often happens with two knights. One of them occupies an outpost, and the other one is basically doing nothing but waiting to recapture on or move to that square when the first one is exchanged.
Here, Black played 11... Ne8, to make the c3 knight superfluous.
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
As far as I know, there's no standard terminology for this. It is usually not the best configuration for two knights; they are stronger when positioned side by side, so that they cover a lot of squares in the same area.
If I had to describe the situation, I'd go for something like 'mutually protecting knights'.
There's a related concept which is called the 'superfluous piece' or 'extra piece', which most often happens with two knights. One of them occupies an outpost, and the other one is basically doing nothing but waiting to recapture on or move to that square when the first one is exchanged.
Here, Black played 11... Ne8, to make the c3 knight superfluous.
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
answered 3 hours ago
Glorfindel
11.6k43355
11.6k43355
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I've seen the term "redundant knights". In general, redundant pieces are pieces can get in each other's way. Here's a quote I could find about the general principle, but not specifically about knights:
Interestingly, two of Lasker’s other points were:
• The principle of
redundancy: Two pieces that move the same way on the same squares can
easily get in each other’s way, while two pieces that never get in
each other’s way – like two bishops – are better coordinated. This was
verified by computer analysis by Larry Kaufman 60 years later! Larry’s
important contributions are noted in several places in this book.
Heisman, Dan. Elements of Positional Evaluation (Kindle Locations 1035-1039). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.
Googling specifically for "redundant knights" I found this (also by Dan Heisman):
For example, he calls two knights that guard each other “redundant knights†and notes that this is usually a weak setup.
https://chesscafe.com/coordination/
I don't have access to that article as I'm not a chesscafe.com member so I don't even know who "he" is (maybe Lasker or Kaufman?), so if anyone with full access to that article can provide more context, I'll happily edit my answer.
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I've seen the term "redundant knights". In general, redundant pieces are pieces can get in each other's way. Here's a quote I could find about the general principle, but not specifically about knights:
Interestingly, two of Lasker’s other points were:
• The principle of
redundancy: Two pieces that move the same way on the same squares can
easily get in each other’s way, while two pieces that never get in
each other’s way – like two bishops – are better coordinated. This was
verified by computer analysis by Larry Kaufman 60 years later! Larry’s
important contributions are noted in several places in this book.
Heisman, Dan. Elements of Positional Evaluation (Kindle Locations 1035-1039). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.
Googling specifically for "redundant knights" I found this (also by Dan Heisman):
For example, he calls two knights that guard each other “redundant knights†and notes that this is usually a weak setup.
https://chesscafe.com/coordination/
I don't have access to that article as I'm not a chesscafe.com member so I don't even know who "he" is (maybe Lasker or Kaufman?), so if anyone with full access to that article can provide more context, I'll happily edit my answer.
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I've seen the term "redundant knights". In general, redundant pieces are pieces can get in each other's way. Here's a quote I could find about the general principle, but not specifically about knights:
Interestingly, two of Lasker’s other points were:
• The principle of
redundancy: Two pieces that move the same way on the same squares can
easily get in each other’s way, while two pieces that never get in
each other’s way – like two bishops – are better coordinated. This was
verified by computer analysis by Larry Kaufman 60 years later! Larry’s
important contributions are noted in several places in this book.
Heisman, Dan. Elements of Positional Evaluation (Kindle Locations 1035-1039). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.
Googling specifically for "redundant knights" I found this (also by Dan Heisman):
For example, he calls two knights that guard each other “redundant knights†and notes that this is usually a weak setup.
https://chesscafe.com/coordination/
I don't have access to that article as I'm not a chesscafe.com member so I don't even know who "he" is (maybe Lasker or Kaufman?), so if anyone with full access to that article can provide more context, I'll happily edit my answer.
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
I've seen the term "redundant knights". In general, redundant pieces are pieces can get in each other's way. Here's a quote I could find about the general principle, but not specifically about knights:
Interestingly, two of Lasker’s other points were:
• The principle of
redundancy: Two pieces that move the same way on the same squares can
easily get in each other’s way, while two pieces that never get in
each other’s way – like two bishops – are better coordinated. This was
verified by computer analysis by Larry Kaufman 60 years later! Larry’s
important contributions are noted in several places in this book.
Heisman, Dan. Elements of Positional Evaluation (Kindle Locations 1035-1039). SCB Distributors. Kindle Edition.
Googling specifically for "redundant knights" I found this (also by Dan Heisman):
For example, he calls two knights that guard each other “redundant knights†and notes that this is usually a weak setup.
https://chesscafe.com/coordination/
I don't have access to that article as I'm not a chesscafe.com member so I don't even know who "he" is (maybe Lasker or Kaufman?), so if anyone with full access to that article can provide more context, I'll happily edit my answer.
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
answered 21 mins ago
itub
2,9491824
2,9491824
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Zhang Jian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zhang Jian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zhang Jian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Zhang Jian is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f22725%2fhow-to-describe-two-knights-defending-each-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
