English Chess Forum

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:17 pm

To take on Justin's mantel perhaps you could provide us with concrete examples of where your actions went beyond mere shallow virtue signalling.

I make no great claims for my efforts, those who know me well would appreciate I am not a natural activist, but the fight against racism has to start somewhere. It is not easy to speak up, but I think having an individual removed from the pub for an extended period for being racist improved the atmosphere considerably, and may well have impressed on those around him, the message that his racism wouldn't be tolerated, hopefully causing them to check their behaviour. In other instances my efforts have been less successful, but unless you believe racism to be trivial, its got to be better to challenge it than ignore it.

If this is something that you have actually done, then I would congratulate you on your efforts. Well done

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:14 am

If this is something that you have actually done, then I would congratulate you on your efforts. Well done

Thank you but no need for the 'if', I mean why would I bother to make this up? Sadly when said racist was allowed back into the pub he spent several evenings recounting why he'd been barred which gave him the excuse to use the same racist phrases again without remorse. I slammed my empty glass down on his table in exasperated fashion and walked out.

I say 'if' mainly because I am not sure I would be brave enough to take said action. So Kudos to you.

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:12 am

It revolves around Problem No 62 and in the solutions the author appears uncomfortable with the term. He feels a need to explain it.

"Kindly meant when this type problem was labelled some fifty years ago [it was 1916] is the tag [P---------]
It was meant to be a graphic summing up of the four eye-catching moves of the baby Black Pawn and the name has stuck."

The debate is: (and I think most agree) is it about time it became 'unstuck.'

For the sake of completeness, I'll give the problem in question. It might spark an idea for a new term.

(Mansfield 1962) White has just played 1.Ne4-f6.

8/4p2K/3P1N2/5kP1/2R2p2/1B3Q2/8/8 b - - 0 19

Ignoring Black King moves. a [P---------] is all four different moves available to the f7 pawn result in four different mates in one.

Thank you to Geoff for pointing out the disquiet Barnes exhibited using the term (remembering the times he wrote in). I am not comfortable using the term today, so have edited it out (twice) in the quote of what Geoff said above. This is despite the annoyance experienced when reading news articles that don't use the term removed from (e.g.) that gravestone. But in reality, it can be looked up for those who want to know, and that is better than causing offence (but how are you to know not to use a term if it is not mentioned and is no longer in common usage?) For completeness, it is the e7 pawn, not the f7 pawn.

I would suggest that serious efforts be devoted to devising a new term, probably one employing "quad" somewhere in it. I tentatively suggest "Quadpawn" as an initial offering.

Hi Chris,

I did swither on the p-word. But having agreed with John on how easily these threads get side-tracked I think
if we stay on topic and people are serious about getting it changed then the word has to, in moderation, be used.
So quoting in full the reservations the author appeared to have it seemed only correct.

If I can I'll nip back and correct the pawn on f7 to e7. Thanks.

Edit: corrected the pawn from f7-e7.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:56 am

I tentatively suggest "Quadpawn" as an initial offering.

Thanks, Chris, for trying to bring the conversation forward.

I think, however, that "Quadpawn" won't work well, as it might be confused with a quadrupled pawn.

Perhaps we can revert to German, which seems to be the chess default for chess terminology? By analogy to "Allumwandlung" (a problem in which all possible promotions of a pawn take place), perhaps "Allzüge" or "Allzügigbauer"?

EDIT: Buchstabieren!

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:12 am

It revolves around Problem No 62 and in the solutions the author appears uncomfortable with the term. He feels a need to explain it.

"Kindly meant when this type problem was labelled some fifty years ago [it was 1916] is the tag Pickaninny
It was meant to be a graphic summing up of the four eye-catching moves of the baby Black Pawn and the name has stuck."

The debate is: (and I think most agree) is it about time it became 'unstuck.'

For the sake of completeness, I'll give the problem in question. It might spark an idea for a new term.

(Mansfield 1962) White has just played 1.Ne4-f6.

8/4p2K/3P1N2/5kP1/2R2p2/1B3Q2/8/8 b - - 0 19

Ignoring Black King moves. a Pickaninny is all four different moves available to the e7 pawn result in four different mates in one.

Thanks, Geoff. Very helpful to see that back in 1976, Barnes did indeed recognise the difficulty with the term.

And thanks for trying to help bring this matter forward with a couple of constructive posts.

I am surprised Justin did not think the author's comments relevant. I would not use the term even with qualification today, but it does change my opinion of the authors use of it then.

The book went through a number of subsequent editions. You will note that I asked if it were used subsequently, as well as about whether the question was raised in the chess roblem world generally. This isn't a question about Barnes as such, and more than it is about any other individual.

I've had an idea which I fully expect will earn derision from other posters, but I'll give it anyway. I didn't really understand what the term picaninny referred to in a chess context, so my thanks to Geoff for posting the example. One could argue that the concept itself is racist because the black piece can do everything it is able to but it always loses straight away anyway. How about then instead of ditching the word picaninny we apply it in a new context to provide a positive message?
The above position is an example that I came up with quickly to illustrate the idea. Here the Black pawn performs all the actions of a pawn before gaining promotion and winning the game.
Black to move, helpmate, black mates in 5 moves

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:52 am

I've had an idea which I fully expect will earn derision from other posters

I'll try to stop short of derision. But I don't think it is within the power of chess problemists to reclaim the word and they are likely to cause offence if they try.

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:52 am

The above position is an example that I came up with quickly to illustrate the idea. Here the Black pawn performs all the actions of a pawn before gaining promotion and winning the game.
Black to move, helpmate, black mates in 5 moves

I agree with Paul that it is a bad idea to try and reclaim the term (that is done, if at all, by those affected by the term). Turning to your example, it appears to be an Excelsior, of the type that involves en passant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excelsior_(chess_problem)

FWIW, the solution is:

1...e5 2.Nd4 exd4 3.e4 dxe3 e.p. 4.Qe1 e2 5.Qf1 exf1=N#

Putting the Black king on f8/f7/f6/f5 would avoid the White Queen being able to reach f1 via f4/f3/f2 though it does introduce a check on the final move (which is OK). I'd move the Black king to f8.

Paul Cooksey wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:44 am

Matthew Turner wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:52 am

I've had an idea which I fully expect will earn derision from other posters

I'll try to stop short of derision. But I don't think it is within the power of chess problemists to reclaim the word and they are likely to cause offence if they try.

Well yes, imagine how it would play with public opinion.