Talk:X-ray (chess)

message: so in this instance, which piece is being felt through which? Doops 03:21, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't see the question and reply sooner.  The white rook is felt through the black rook.  Specifically, the white rook on c8 defends the white queen on f8, even though the black rook on d8 is in the way.  --Fritzlein 02:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Exchanging rooks was the line that erislover deleted in the interests of clarity (I understand the reasons for doing so, but I wonder if it's going to cause more confusion than englightenment; perhaps it's better to find a "cleaner" example of the X-ray which doesn't have such sidelines?). The line is question is: 1.Rc8 Rxc8 2.Qe7! Qxe7 (if 2...Qc6 3.d8Q+ is neatest) 3.dxc8Q+. --Camembert 13:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternate lines can get pretty complicated, but since someone asked about it almost immediately after I removed it, I guess it was best to have it in. In that case, I have tried to be thorough. It still strikes meas distracting, but these are the compromises that must be reached. Players advanced enough to see the possibilities without mentioning it would already know the x-ray attack anyway, so the alternate lines do make sense in that light. Erislover 15:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: I have a question.
My question is: Why didn't Black King move to h8 instead of h7? How is h7 a better move than h8? Or is either move as checkmate-able as the other? Thank you. bananaketchup (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are equivalent.  Bf8 checkmates with either.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: I think the definition of X-ray given in this article may be wrong, and no sources are given.  See Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Chess#X-ray (chess) for discussion. Quale (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected to Skewer (chess) per aforementioned discussion. Quale (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I un-redirected it, restoring the supported usage, and deleting the usage that is, as I had indicated by my fact (citation needed) tag, unsupported. Krakatoa (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of this article 

message: Silman's Complete book of chess strategy has two pages about x-ray on 132-33, one example here.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to check and see if I have that book (I'm not at home now). That is very interesting, since it supports the controversial meaning of the term - one piece supporting a friendly piece through an enemy piece. That meaning was in the original version of the article, but no one could find a source to support it. As you'll recall, Quale (understandably) was insistent that without a source for that meaning, it had to go. This is an important tactical concept, and one that is sometimes hard to see. Another, flashier example is IM Andrew Whiteley-Dunn, London 1989, a big upset apparently: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.a3 Qh4 5.Be3 Bc5 6.Qd3??? Nxf2 0-1 Krakatoa (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I thought, I don't have the book, so I just ordered it. Nice find! Krakatoa (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a pretty elementary book.  Bubba73 (talk), 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh well. It was only five bucks. Krakatoa (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  example 

message: Um, why are there two dark square Bishops on the upper left picture? O.o Thewriter006 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be an error.  The Bishop on e3 was probably supposed to be on e2 (or maybe d3). I'll change it, but I don't know if it is correct for that opening.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Two dark square bishops