Talk:Fork (chess)

message: Aren't there some opening traps that involve queen forks that would make a good example. ... I've had both of these happen to me:
* n. Qh5+ ... n+1. Qxe5
* m. ... Qe5+ m+1. ... QxRa1
If nobody has a ready example, I'll try to dig one up... Jeff 18:24 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
:There are a couple of almost unbelievable examples of this sort of thing from games at quite a high level. Combe-Hasenfuss, Folkstone Olympiad 1933 went 1. d4 c5  2. c4 cxd4  3. Nf3 e5  4. Nxe5 Qa5+  5. resigns. This is given in Mike Fox and Richard James' The Complete Chess Addict (1987) as the shortest ever loss by a master. I'll let somebody else put it in the article if they want, though—I'm not sure how to best format it. --Camembert
::Postscript: see World records in chess for a shorter game with a similar fork. --Camembert
:After only a few times playing over IRC, a long time ago, I once quadruple forkchecked him with my knight, checking his king (duh), queen, rook, and pawn.  Is that good? :) lysdexia 03:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Quadruple forkchecking (sic)

message: i'm not really into chess algebra, but shouldn't it be Nd2 instead of Nd3 -- the knight is on f3, so he can't move along line 3 can't he?
Besides, it is perhaps not impossible that after a king queen fork, you don't loose your queen. This happens when moving your king opens the way for a piece that checks the other king. --Selach 23:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  First the knight moves to f2, then to d3 to fork the queen and rook.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example queen rook fork 

message: Black's pawn fork isn't mentioned in the lead image caption. Doing so would make it even longer, so perhaps those three pieces should be removed altogether? —JAO • T • C 04:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that caption is too long as it is.  I think it would be better to shorten the caption but discuss that example more fully in the text of the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 23:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that sounds like a good idea. —JAO • T • C 08:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead image

message: Not sure if "undefended" is proper chess terminology; by "piece A defends piece B", I mean that if B were taken by piece C, then A would be able to take C immediately. Is it considered a fork when one or both of the attackable pieces is being defended? Is there separate terminology for when one or both of the attackable pieces is defended? If so, the intro should mention them, because they would be closely related to forking.--Danielx (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right - the forked piece could be defended, but more valuable than the attacking piece.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  forked pieces must be undefended? 

message: I removed most of the caption to the first diagram as discussed on the Chess project page. (It is particularly effective to fork a king and another piece: the rules require immediate attention to a check to the king.) Black cannot choose to defend another piece, nor can he make an intermediate move (zwischenzug) to complicate the situation; the king must move, after which White can capture the rook. In return, ... . But White can escape loss of material, since after Black's king moves out of check, one of the rooks can deliver check again, allowing the other rook to escape next move, and possibly check the black king again, allowing the white knight to capture the black rook. 
The reason is that the caption is too long.  At this point, forks should be illustrated, but the caption went too far.  I think the removed material about intermediate moves, etc, should be discussed in a section in the body, but not here and not with this example.  
I also removed the white king from the diagram because this is not intended to represent an actual position - just show the forks.  
I also don't see the need for the second diagram (which has now been removed).  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed material, etc 

message: After all of the revisions, I think the article needs two things:
# An example (with diagram) showing an escape from a fork, preferably from a master game.
# inline references.  Even though most references are going to say about the same thing about forks, a few inline references will help it get to a higher class.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs 

message: While we're making modest improvements in this article, I'd like to add a short section at the end showing the fork in a simple combination with another tactical device, such as a pin.  I don't think any of our articles give good examples of how tactics are usually applied in practice, and this would end the article with a slightly more complicated example.  Pachman provides some good examples, so I think I could borrow one from him.  There are many other possible sources too.  Again if someone is ambitious enough to take this one themselves, I'm lazy enough to be very happy to let you do it.  Quale (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple combination 

message: I think Bubba's K+Q vs R idea is probably right/good. There already seems to be enough emphasis on forks from knights, but, I did find this do you think it has value here (this is taking right out of the source [Soltis book] w/o any substantive changes) ...
"Now, with 39.Bd4, Black still had to prove he had a win, but Alekhine makes 'another terrible move.' 39. Ba3? e5! Black polishes off the game quickly after this because of the knight forks and the activity of his K. For example, 40.fxe5 Ndxe5+ 41.Nxe5+ Nxe5+ 42.Ke4 Ke6 should be an easy win, e.g. 43.Bc5 Nb4 44.h4 Nf6+ 45.Kd4 (else 55...Kd5) Kf5 scooping up the kingside pawns. 40. Ke3 Ke6 41. Bb2 Kd5 42. Nh4 Nb6! 43. Bc1 Nc4+ 44. Kf2 Nb4! Threatening another N-fork. The key point of Black's maneuver is that 55...Na2 will grease the path of the b-pawn. White will not even get a chance to sacrifice a piece for it if the pawn gets to the sixth rank. The game proceeded 45. Ke2 Na2 46. Bd2 b4 47. fxe5 b3 48. Kd1 Nxe5! There was a last Alekhine trap in 48...b2? 49.Kc2 Nxd2 50.Kxb2 Nb4 51.Kc3 forking the pieces. But Black's move threatened ...Kd5–c4–d3 or ...Ne5–d3–f2+ followed by ...b2. Alekhine tried 49. Ng2 Ke4 50. h4 Nd3 51.Ba5 Nb2+ and resigned because 52.Ke2 Nc4! would either queen the pawn or win the white B."
Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fork in ending  

message: You're right, I've often heard these described as "forking pieces".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Rattigan (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forking piece 

message: Has anyone ever seen the terms absolute fork or relative fork used in real chess literature?  These were added 100% in good faith, but I don't find the single source provided (https://www.chess-game-strategies.com/chess-fork.html) to be very compelling. Quale (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other terms 

message: Hi, I made this graphics.
It shows combinations of forkable squares. The main insights are: 1. Two enemy pieces have to be on the same color. Most will know this but it will be useful for very new players. 2. There are two cases where being the same color are insufficient for "forkability". These are marked with exclamation marks.
Feel free to incorporate this graphics. Sorry about the color scheme. I know its not the prettiest and doesnt match the standard appearance on Wiki. I made it for myself but thought I might share.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedZepaholic (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics showing (not) "forkable" squares