Talk:Backward pawn

Rubenstein[edit]

I think the Rubenstein game/position gave some good information. What about reinstating it? Bubba73 (talk), 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition enhancement. May be inappropriate for a quick summary on wikipedia but more formal Thoughts?.[edit]

Based on the definition you can construct this instance of a backwards pawn that meets the definition presented here but is NOT a backwards pawn.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

c6 is not backwards but satisifes the current definition.

In chess, a backward pawn is a pawn that is behind a pawn of the same color on an adjacent file and that cannot be advanced without loss of material, usually the backward pawn itself. In the diagram, the black pawn on the c6-square is backward.

I wanted to insert the word unsupported "a backward pawn is an unsupported pawn" (unsupported by other pawns) without cluttering the definition by being overly wordy. But it is important that the pawn itself is not supported.

The way i would specifically address the clarification is to add a new section Necessary conditions:

A backwards pawn

is one square behind a pawn of the same color on an adjacent file
has its forward square controlled by a Sentry (an enemy pawn controlling the square lying on the path or front span of an opponent's pawn)
does not have a friendly pawn controlling the stop square of the backwards pawn
does not have a friendly pawn controlling the current square of the backwards pawn

It is also worth noting that a backwards pawn does not necessarily require an open square to push into for it to be a backwards pawn.

I think those conditions are correct, but are missing that a backward pawn is not blocked by an enemy pawn. The Oxford Companion to Chess does not require that a backward pawn support a friendly pawn on an adjacent file, only that the backward pawn itself 1) is not supported by a friendly pawn, 2) cannot advance with the support of a friendly pawn, 3) is restrained from advance by an enemy pawn, but 4) is not blocked by an enemy pawn. Quale (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the definition currently used in the article is incomplete, but any definition we give should cite a reliable source. According to the Oxford Companion's definition, the so-called "semi-backward" pawns (e.g. Black's d-pawn in the Scheveningen Sicilian) would also be considered backward pawns, which I don't think is standard. And both the OP and the Oxford Companion suggest that a pawn can only be backward if an enemy pawn controls the square in front of it, but I'm not sure that this is universally accepted either. Cobblet (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we must go by reliable sources, not what one of us thinks it is. There are several sources. The Mammoth Book of Chess by Burgess says "a pawn that, although not isolated, cannot be supported by either neighboring pawn because they have advanced ahead of it." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would accord with Silman's definition in The Complete Book of Chess Strategy (p. 236): "A backward pawn is a pawn that has fallen behind its brother pawns and can't be guarded by them or safely move side by side with them." Cobblet (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

Cobblet is right, our definitions must be cited to reliable sources. Like many chess terms, I think that chess writers use a range of overlapping definitions. I never thought about this much, but looking through a bunch of books it seems the most common definition of "backward pawn" really is as simple as a pawn lagging behind adjacent friendly pawns so that it can no longer be supported by them. I found equivalent definitions in Dictionary of Modern Chess (Horton 1959), several works by Silman, Chess for Dummies (2nd ed, Eade 2005), Encyclopedia of Chess (Golombek 1977), Complete Chess Strategy (Pachman 1976), and The Mammoth Book of Chess (Burgess 1997).

The advantage of this simple definition is that it is simple and reasonably unambiguous. But as pointed out by Rook2Pawn and Cobblet, it includes many formations that might not normally be described as backward. It may be the problem is the assumption that "backward pawn" must always mean "weak pawn", but of course this isn't always true. Horton says that a backward pawn on an open file may be a weakness. Fine ties all varieties of weak pawns to their lack of mobility, and he requires that a backward pawn be on a half-open file making it more likely that it will be weak. Only a few writers require more conditions for backwardness: An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess (Brace 1977) does not require a half-open file but says that the backward pawn must be subject to attack by enemy pawns if it advances, and Hooper & Whyld require that and that the backward pawn not be directly blocked by an enemy pawn. The Hooper & Whyld definition is the most elaborate one I found.

As is often the case, John Watson (Secrets of Modern Chess, pp. 125–137) provides the most interesting discussion in a section called "Are Your Pawns Really Backward?" He specifically discusses the Scheveningen ...d6/...e6 structure which Euwe calls "semi-backward". (I think even the Hooper & Whyld definition would not call the d6 pawn backward since it can advance with the support of e6 pawn.) Watson also discusses the Najdorf/Sveshnikov ...d6/...e5 structure which is definitely backward, although certainly not necessarily weak.

All I can offer is that any definition that could classify the base of an interlocking pawn chain to be a backward pawn just seems wrong, although some of the definitions might finesse that when talk about the backward pawn being subject to attack if it were to advance. (In an blocked structure no advance is possible, so maybe it wouldn't qualify as backward.) Quale (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "backward" s/n encompass a d6–e6 sturcture ("simi-backward"), or as part of a pawn chain. So what is the problem or complexity? (A backward pawn is inherently weak, independent of other considerations, since it cannot advance w/o another pawn supporting. What is confusing about that? Whether a backward pawn is supported by a non-pawn piece is completely irrelevant re its status as backward. Whether a pawn is "weak" or not is subject to the game/position particulars and must be dismissed. So what is at issue? A backward pawn is independent of being on half-open file, or not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can solve the problem (which the OP tried to fix by introducing the word "unsupported") by modifying the current definition to "a pawn that is behind all pawns of the same color on adjacent files".~~The stipulation that a backward pawn "cannot be advanced without loss of material" does not appear in the definitions we've quoted above, so I think we should remove it from our definition.~~It appears in the definition I found myself, d'oh! Cobblet (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to disagree w/ that. From Backward pawn: "A pawn that is behind a pawn of the same color on an adjacent file and that cannot be advanced with the support of another pawn." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wonderful definition, and is free from excessive verbage at the same time. Rook2pawn (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the definition and added a source. Cobblet (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree w/ that definition. "cannot be safely advanced"?! (What does that mean? Besides vague, isn't it also misleading? Hooper/Whyld give a precise def, and don't say anything silly like that. Silman's def sucks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't add that phrase, then in the diagram at the top of this page, b7 is a backward pawn no matter what White's piece configuration is. And the problem with the Hooper/Whyld definition is that they require an enemy pawn to control the square in front of the backward pawn, which isn't how others define it. Cobblet (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, "safely" is vague/undefined what it might mean, making the def unclear. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity of the definition reflects the ambiguity of the term. Not all the terms we use in daily conversation have precise, mathematical definitions. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's chess, not "daily conversation" (or math). Putting the phrase "cannot advance safely" is trying to describe something, or making an effort to describe something, and by taking the position it is indescribable or undefinable, is inconsistent with the attempt to apparently try to define or describe to the reader. If we don't want to play games with the reader's head, then we should simply say the term is ambiguous and has no precise meaning. (I don't agree with the premise there is no clear-cut definition to begin with, but if I did, then it should just stated as ambiguous and imprecise as mentioned.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I heard you the first time: "Silman's def sucks." If you have a better definition, volunteer it and stop wasting our time. Cobblet (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to (fucking) waste anyone's time. "Safely" sucks, because it is vague. So calling a spade a spaDe is "wasting someone's time"?? If it is in your personal standard to live with and approve sucky definitions, then that is you, not me, OK? And your request that I step forward and provide a definition or presumably shut my mouth, is illogical, and I can't respond to it, without knowing what the hell my description or definition is supposed to include or not include. (Does that make any sense to you?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC) p.s. This is the second time you've accused me of "wasting [your] time". (The first was on my User talk, where you didn't get your way immediately. Then after your "you're wasting my time" comment, you went away, then came back to snipe and make additional insult. I suggest you get a better handle on what discussion entails, since you've shown a pattern of rudeness if you don't get your immediate way. I for one am sick of it and won't take it without throwing insults back at you, that you started. Someone needs to tell you that you are rude, Cobblet![reply]

The definition including "cannot safely advance" sucks because it is vague, confusing the reader because it is trying to explain something apparently, but it doesn't know what it wants to explain. That's dysfunctional for an encyclopedia. Deal with it. But I won't revert the definition. I'm simply registering opinion as editor that the definition is unsatisfactory, for reasons explained. (And if that pisses you off and makes you want to be rude, I could give a rat's ass.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it offends you that I've told you you're wasting my time, then I apologize. But it is tiresome to try to have a productive discussion in a group when one person repeatedly protests the direction the discourse is following without offering productive thoughts of their own. Cobblet (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]