Talk:Desperado (chess)

Examples are all strange

Well, I rm'd the first example since it was just a stalemate trap, not a desperado piece... only to see that all the examples are stalemate traps. Go ahead and shoot me down if I'm wrong, but a desperado piece is a piece which is exchanged off, but manages to do extra damage before being re-taken. It's not applicable to stalemate swindles. <eleland/talkedits> 23:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Companion to Chess gives two definitions - yours and the one in the article. I've restored the deleted material, but the article should also give the other definition. Bubba73 (talk), 02:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

Another example of a desparato piece leading to a stalemate trap is Pein - de Firmian, Bermuda 1995, ref: Practical Endgame Play by Neil McDonald, but I think there are already enough examples in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to "Further reading". Bubba73 (talk), 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That game is cheap. Pein must have been tired to fall for 55.g6? The game is available on chessgames.com, so I think I will cite that instead? Surely that's much more accessible to the reader than having to go out and buy a book. Krakatoa 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to not add it since there are enough examples already. But add it if you think it should be there. Bubba73 (talk), 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "desperado piece"

The way I remember it a desperado is one that's going to be lost anyway (desperado = lost all hope) and therefore does the maximum possible damage before it goes, rather than one which is determined to sacrifice itself. I also have a vague memory that desperado pieces in that sense are disproportionately involved in zwischenzugs, especially checks. Philcha (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the wording currently in the article is a little unusual. Also I think the title is a problem. Since a desperado is already always a piece, "desperado piece" is redundant and I don't think the phrase is ever used. (Desperado is a noun, not an adjective as this article seems to say.) Hooper&Whyld and Golombek both use the entry "desperado". I think the page should be moved to desperado (chess) to avoid the disambiguation at desperado. (As a point of possible interest, Golombek gives only the first definition of desperado and not the stalemate-related usage. This agrees with my own experience as I had never encountered desperado used in that second stalemate-related way given by Hooper&Whyld.) Quale (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most familiar with phrases like "desperado knight" rather than "desperado" on its own, so "desperado piece" is fine with me. As for the disambiguation at desperado, it's a little bit of advertising for chess :-) Philcha (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, that is a common usage. Even in this case I don't think desperado is an adjective. It might be a compound noun, but I'm not a grammar theory person. Either way "desperado piece" doesn't seem unreasonable when viewed that way, although it still seems a little troublesome to me. We start "A desperado piece is a piece ..." whereas Hooper&Whyld start "'desperado, a piece, en prise or trapped, ..." and Golombek starts "DESPERADO A piece which, ...". Plugging in our "desperdo piece" in to either definition would logically lead to "A desperado piece is a piece piece ...". Our article title strongly suggests that "desperado" can't stand on its own without modifiying something or being part of a compound, but this isn't the case. Quale (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with move to Desperado (chess). The word is a noun, not an adjective, as someone correctly stated above. Bubba73 (talk), 06:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to a move to Desperado (chess)? Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, so I did it. Bubba73 (talk), 22:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously, Black had better moves"

	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

Black to move

Ok Jasper, since it is, as you say, "obvious", please show a better move for Black than what was played, 1...dxe2.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1...dxe2 indeed is the best move, but why give it an exclam? We don't give exclamation marks for obvious moves like this (Black is a rook down, so he may as well take back).Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're insufferable, Jasper! I didn't open this section about whether or not "!" was justified. I opened this section to ask you for an example of a better move for Black, because of your edit summary assertion made to support changing Black's move annotation from "!" to "??". I'm not interested in your attempt to commandeer my question and change the topic. I'm not interested in your attempt to try and turn my question around and magically put *me* in a position of having to explain or defend something. (I made no assertions to defend – you, on the other hand, did. Several!)

Here are your assertions, in the order you gave them:

1) "Obviously, Black had better moves."

(I asked: What better move?)

2) "1...Qxe5, or any queen move that stops stalemating the king, is better than this."

3) "1...Qe3 seems better, threatening to mate White with ...Qh6+ etc."

4) "1...dxe2 indeed is the best move."

You kept *deleting* your assertions off the Talk page, as you made them! (Ever heard of ~~striking~~?)

Your edit put a "??" on a move which you now have concluded is "Black's best move". (Have you ever admitted in your editing life that you've made a mistake? That you were totally wrong? Really!? In this lifetime?!) SHEESH! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a double, only a single, ?. I'd like a bit of civility (not that you have to re-read it, I'm thinking) out of you. Yes, Black has nothing better, but it isn't a blunder or mistake either, nor is it the exclamation mark move you think it is.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit being a DICK. Look what you're saying: "Black has nothing better". Amazing. (As though, Black has one or more EQUALLY GOOD moves to 1...dxe2. The fact is Jasper, 1...dxe2 is Black's only move to save his game; all other moves lose.) Look what you're saying: "It isn't a blunder or mistake." What?! To play the only move, which saves one's game?!? And Dear Mr. Jasper, I reverted your edit, because you put a "?" on Black's only move to save his game (therefore also his best move). I never made any assertion, at anytime as you now falsely accuse me, of what "I think" about "!". You are such a WP:WEASEL. You seem unable to learn anything or admit any mistake. You are insufferable! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll ignore the incivility for nowt). 1...dxe2 is what Fritz 8 says. It's not, for instance, like a complete desperado for stalemate, as White does here, so it does not deserve it. Yes, I was wrong on the ? because I did not check the position.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were also wrong, in all your other assertions (1...Qxe5, 1...any_Q_move, 1...Qxe3), and in your "Black has nothing better" implication that he might have something equally good. Even when you "checked the position", you still got it wrong. But still didn't admit same. And your constant attempts to change the topic on me, try to spin things around and make me defend or explain something, and put words in my mouth and tell me what I "think", is too irritating for words. BTW I don't give a damn what Fritz 8 says. And nobody said the "desperado" was expected to come from Black in the example. (Why would you expect that?! The example is about White's desperado.) I don't want to discuss with you what I think about "!" on Black's 1...dxe2, so quit incessantly tying to bend the topic that way. At least you've admitted to one mistake. But you've made many. Enough! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going to eliminate the !, because it's clear that it doesn't deserve it, but you're right everywhere else. Lots of ad hominem comments you've been making here, so next time you try to discuss with me, quit making them.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More B.S. from you: "Not a bad move." (After finally seeing, and agreeing, it is Black's best move?! Amazing you are, Mr. Jasper.) "Per Talk". (Oh really! Gee, I don't recall any discussion, and therefore no consensus, to remove the "!", at all. In fact, I specifically told you numerous times I wasn't entering that topic with you. What a fabrication!) You're amazing, Jasper. You go around acting like a WP cop, and even had a message box on your User page stating "This User is not an Administrator but acts like one." Your are truly insufferable, incurable. You were even in ANI at one point being considered for an indefinite block. When does it stop with you?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, your incivility. I think it's time for WQA here or for me to just stop talking to you. You didn't dispute that ! was not an accurate annotation.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had good dealings with both of you recently. My first thought is that move evaluations (!, ?, etc) should follow a reference, and not be the opinion of an editor. But I don't think I have any reference book with this game, so I can't refer to it. However, it looks to me that Black doesn't have a better move and capturing the piece is an obvious move that doesn't deserve any punctuation. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking I was wasting no more time responding to Ihardlythinkso's personal attacks, but you've lifted my spirits :). I'd like to add that this move captures a piece for free, so it doesn't deserve !. The beginner does not know first-hand that other moves lose.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote that, I put it into Houdini 2.0. It says that Qxg4 is much better than taking the piece, but that results in a completely lost position. Black has no good move in that position. Qxg4 is relatively better (objectively) but taking the piece may be his best "chance" to save the game. I'd leave off any evaluation unless it is referenced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba, confusing. How can Qxg4 be "better (objectively)" when it results in "a completely lost position"? 1...dxe2 saves Black's game. 1...Qxg4 loses it. (So how can Qxg4 be better in any context? I must be missing something.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 1...dxe2 is an only move that draws by force, while 1...Qxg4?? loses by force. Fritz 8 concurs with Ihardlythinkso here, with other lines like 1...Qxg4 leading to evaluations like +40.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have had the position set up wrong yesterday when I put it into the program. It is an interesting position. Yes, 1...cxd2 is the only move that doesn't lose, and then 2.Rf8+ is the only move that doesn't lose (it does force a draw). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fascinating position. Let's not gunk it up w/ unnecessary commentary. About the exclam, since both Black *and* White are playing best-and-only moves to save their games, "!" (on Black's) followed by "!" (on White's) seems appropriate in that context. However, 1...dxe2 isn't "hard to find", whereas 2. Rf8+ *is*. An exclam usually accompanies a good move that is also hard to find, but not always. It can simply mean: "the right decision" or "the conscientious choice" for a host of potentially differing reasons. (I've seen "!" put on 1.d4 based on psychology between the players, and backgrounds on opening preparations and their prior playing histories, etc. But that type annotation needs to have accompanying explanation of course. In the example here, "(other moves lose)" is a perfectly fine explanatory annotation to "1...dxe2!", but if that annotation is added, doesn't it kindof dilute the example for the reader, by suggesting Black is teetering on the defensive? (He is, but look at the position after 1...dxe2. It looks like Black is crushing White! Which makes White's desperado save all the more incredible and impressive.) And if we take off the exclam, doesn't it hide the fact that there was some very serious drama present for Black in that position? (Jasper even thought Black had numerous better moves and options.))

I say, best is to just leave the thing alone. But apparently it bothers Jasper a great deal that the "!" is there (even though he unknowningly provided justification for it to be there). If we strip off the "!", I think it robs the example of its inherent and charming dual-crisis quality.

But I'll bend to consensus, as long as this is threeparty now. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. I don't own any chess engine; it was funny to see how Houdini couldn't visualize the endgame! (That was a weakness of computers long ago, haven't they "fixed" that yet?!)[reply]

I must have made an error in putting in the position yesterday, since I got a different result than when I put it in today. First, I think the move evaluations should follow a reliable source/reference. But my opinion is that 1...dxe2 is so obvious that it doesn't deserve a !, whereas Rf8+ does. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So! Acc. to Krakatoa's input, we have an RS with the exclam (by the awesome man, player, and author Ludek Pachman), and one without (Korn). Since Korn was annotating a game he (White) played against an opponent (Black), is if fair to say that Korn's source is primary, whereas Pachman's is an independent secondary? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Clearly Krakatoa was following the Pachman (secondary) source when adding the desperado example, since 6.Qe7 was added with one exclam, not two.[reply]

Copy of this article

Just as a note, [1] presents a section of the text on Bogolyubov-Schmid on p. 42 that is identical to this article, but the text here predates 2009, so if there is a copyvio, it goes the other way. 209.6.54.254 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the author of that book and got this response: "The book is no longer published. Sorry for the inadvertent plagiarism." Joriki (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“... before it is itself captured”

Is “... before it is itself captured”, which is currently in the lede, really part of the definition? The term is used differently in Promotion_(chess)#Strategy. ◅ Sebastian 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different definitions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this answer supposed to help? It doesn't matter if you call it “two different definitions” or regard it as two variants, both agree in the part I quoted. ◅ Sebastian 13:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadequate referencing and too much "further reading"

Per MOS:FURTHER and WP:CITE, this article has, among other problems, too many items in "Further reading" and "Bibliography" and not enough references. Seven of the 10 inline references are to chessgames.com, followed by a laundry list of 16 book titles. Multiple attempts to fix this have been reverted by User:Bubba73 and User:Quale who claim that "the bibliography is the references in the text!" I'd invite these users to explain how this relates to actual WP policy and current best practices as described in places like WP:CITE, etc. --Cornellier (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are three items under "Further reading". I think all three of them are relevant. The footnote-style links are mostly to chess games. But EVERYTHING in the "bibliography" is referenced in the text!! If you looked in the text, you would see them. So don't complain about there not being enough references.

From The New Oxford American Dictionary, second edition, the first definition of "bibliography" is "a list of books referred to in a scholarly work, usually printed as an appendix". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that three books is too many items in further reading is bizarre, and I don't see anything in MOS:FURTHER to impeach the further reading section of this article. On the question of references, I'm not keen on articles like this one that mix citation styles using both footnotes (technically I would say they are endnotes, but Wikipedia doesn't pay attention to that distinction) and inline Harvard citations. According to WP:CITE#Parenthetical referencing, inline parenthetical references were recently deprecated in September 2020. I was unaware of this until I took a glance at that guideline just a minute or two ago. I am actually in favor of Harvard references, but I prefer to see them in the endnotes using WP:CITESHORT where they can refer to full citations in the references or bibliography. If we updated this article to use the short citation style the use of the bibliography would be more readily apparent. Quale (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the references used parenthetical referencing until we started linking to games with footnotes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Desperation Move" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Desperation Move has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 8 § Desperation Move until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]