Talk:The exchange (chess)

Untitled

This article and Minor exchange are about similar things, and both are stubs. I think they should be merged. Bubba73 (talk), 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem is they are not as similar as they seem. Allowing the opponent to "win" a "minor exchange" is normally not (all things being equal) a great problem. However losing the exchange at club level or higher can be sufficient to lose the game. Georgeslegloupier 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right. But they are both only one paragraph, so maybe "minor exchange" can be a section in the article about the exchange. Just something to consider, I don't think it is a big deal. Bubba73 (talk), 14:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I lean slightly towards merging, as they are so short. But also agree either way is acceptable. Baccyak4H 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor exchange is a nonsense term I've never heard or seen used before. It's not a common part of chess parlance and should be removed from wikipedia.

Btw - does anyone know the etymology of the term 'Exchange'? It's an odd term (as is 'quality' in Spanish) and perhaps therefore deserves an explanation.Tommy-Chivs 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

clarification

Some IP said:

"== [Question for editing: I'm an avid chess player, and being that I've played for about 4 years and garnered a rating of 1562 by USCF standards, I'm pretty sure 'exchange' does NOT apply only to a rook for a minor piece and vice versa. Rather, it's more of a series of captures, and whoever wins more material is said to have won the exchange.]"

Well, I have a USCF rating of 1665 and I am pretty sure that "exchange" refers to a bishop or knight for rook.

On a side note, the loss of an exchange is not usually enough to lose the game, but makes the game very difficult. Especially the bishop for rook exchange, which can be VERY difficult to win. Also, a well-placed knight versus a rook can be an easy draw or even a win for the knight.

And the etymology of the term- I am pretty sure that the word comes from the fact that a bishop for a rook is an "exchange" or trade- but to "win" it means that you gain something in the trade, which you do. Citations would, of course, be needed for both of these. I have a few chess books and may be able to add these in. W1k13rh3nry 02:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Back in Steinitz’s day the bishop was considered far superior to the knight, mostly because king pawn and king’s gambit openings dominated the tournament games, therefore a bishop was more effective in the open positions that arose. Therefore even though the rook was considered more valuable, a dynamic could arise in which one could exchange a rook for a bishop and a pawn and be subjectively equal in the evaluation of the games of that era, thus an 'exchange'.

But exchange sacrifices are a very unique occurrence in chess, mainly because of the dynamic that arises and the fact that most successful exchange sacrifices occur early in the game, move 20-30, mainly because as the pawns get gradually traded off more and more open files open up for the rooks and thus are more powerful, but in the early middle game perhaps a knight or bishop is more useful, or in another case eliminating your opponents good bishop and keeping your own of the same color might magnify both the control of the squares of that color and increase the power and influence of its counterpart. In this case the compensation of your opponents extra rook is subdued by the crowded pawn structure. Rubico 19:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Topic name

Why 'The exchange (chess)'? Why not Exchange (chess). SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To answer my own question it's because "the exchange differs from the more general 'exchange' or 'an exchange,' which refers to the loss and subsequent gain of arbitrary pieces.". Quite ambiguous, especially as Exchange (chess) redirects here. SunCreator (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's an attempt to distinguish it from the other meaning of "exchange" in chess, as in to swap (or swop if you prefer) pieces, usually of equal value. That doesn't mean that the current title is the best, as I also think it's a little awkward. Quale (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the need for that distinction is why the Exchange, referring to rook for knight or bishop, is sometimes capitalized. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Yes, see now. Quite an awkward way it's done. SunCreator (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reshevsky-Petrosian 1953

This needs clarification:

In the game Reshevsky-Petrosian, Zurich 1953, he sacrificed the exchange on move 25, only for his opponent to sacrifice it in return on move 30

	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

Reshevsky - Petrosian, Zurich 1953. Black to play 25th.

24.Re3 Rd8 25.Rfe1 (diagram) Re6 26.a4 Ne7 27.Bxe6 fxe6 28.Qf1 Nd5 29.Rf3 Bd3 30.Rxd3 cxd3 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106248 The rook is moved to where it can be captured on move 25 but isn't captured by the bishop until move 27. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 12:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Exchange (chess)

Because of the importance and frequency of exchanges of pieces in chess, I've just written a new article called Exchange (chess) which covers all kinds of exchanges in chess in general. I have not added any examples. If anyone wants to add examples, please go ahead and do so.

Eventually, some may think about merging this more specific article The exchange (chess) with the new generalized Exchange (chess) article. I suppose it depends on the length of the two articles when the Exchange (chess) article is more complete with examples and references. Maybe we can wait and see how things turn out. In the meantime, if you ever need to make links to a general chess exchange article, Exchange (chess) is now available. I must caution there is yet another redirect page called Exchange chess which leads to Bughouse chess, which is a variation of chess involving special rules on exchanges. H Padleckas (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)