1078: "Knights"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

am3930
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:39 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby am3930 » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:30 pm UTC

At the least it throws a wrench in the plans of those who just memorize opening moves.

Just saying that if you can give your pawns bows you can put the queen on whichever side you feel like.
Take me out to the black.
Tell them I ain't comin' back.
Burn the land and boil the sea.
You can't take the-


****, they have.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby mathmannix » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:32 pm UTC

Spoe wrote:
Jorpho wrote:Forsooth, I did not get this at all. And the arrows do not render correctly in the alt-text in Chrome or IE9. (Works in Firefox though.)


Rendered fine in both (Win 7) for me.


However, for those of us whose work computers still have XP and IE7, not so good.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:33 pm UTC

SerMufasa wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:I am saddened by the fact that so many people in this thread are apparently unfamiliar with Henry V.


Henry V is rarely taught in High School English in the US, so unless you are particularly inclined to study Shakespeare or watch Kenneth Branagh films, it's likely to escape your attention.

I don't know. I mean, I can understand not being familiar with the entirety of Henry V, but the St. Crispin's day speech is one of the most famous bits of English-language literature ever written. I still say it's a terrible shame that so many people here are apparently unfamiliar with it and the basic context behind it.

maxQ
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby maxQ » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

SerMufasa wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:I am saddened by the fact that so many people in this thread are apparently unfamiliar with Henry V.


Henry V is rarely taught in High School English in the US, so unless you are particularly inclined to study Shakespeare or watch Kenneth Branagh films, it's likely to escape your attention.



I had a LOT of Shakespeare in High School English. A lot. I think I had read everything except King Lear before college.

We even watched Kenneth Branagh's Henry V in class.

kirel
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:31 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby kirel » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:37 pm UTC

Drat - I had to look it up and learn something. That's just not right. :)
After understanding what that battle was about, I thoroughly enjoyed the comic, though think it might have been better for white to have started with all of it's pawns behind the major pieces. Just my 2¢

User avatar
Dr. Diaphanous
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:38 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Dr. Diaphanous » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:51 pm UTC

The queen thing is actually a complex metaphor. It's the white queen that is in the wrong place, which symbolises how the French army was disorganised because the nobility were all jostling for position to get at the English first, in what they thought would be an easy victory. The colours of the board squares are flipped because the field is so waterlogged that the white patches are darkened with wet mud, while other areas that were dark appear white from the glare of the sun on the water. Additionally, the board is flipped, representing that looking back on history is like looking into the rear-view mirror in a car - you can never see it perfectly, and it is harder the further away it is, and events may be presented the wrong way around to how it actually happened. Similarly, the Ne3 represents how events can be recorded in a contradictory manner: however we can infer from other data (the rules, and the fact that the picture shows the defeated knight on f3) what actually happened (Nf3). This is intended as an optimistic footnote that despite difficulties, we can piece together the truth by using all the sources.

xkcd is never wrong. It is sometimes just hard to understand the complexities of the humour. :D
"God works in mysterious and breathtakingly cruel ways."

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby bantler » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:If people could customize their chessboard I think the game would be popular with more people and teach better strategy.

mcv wrote:But ... so what? If there is something funny, insightful, or otherwise worthwhile about this comic, I'm not seeing it.
Chess is supposed to represent warfare.


If people stopped thinking chess represented warfare it would be a lot more popular (It's Space and Time).

User avatar
SerMufasa
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:00 pm UTC
Location: Casterley Rock

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby SerMufasa » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:I don't know. I mean, I can understand not being familiar with the entirety of Henry V, but the St. Crispin's day speech is one of the most famous bits of English-language literature ever written. I still say it's a terrible shame that so many people here are apparently unfamiliar with it and the basic context behind it.


Sorry, should've clarified: the speech is popular and probably gets more "play" than the entire play. But typically when a speech is focused on, the purpose is memorization, not context and understanding. I actually have seen the speech before, but couldn't even tell you which play it was from (a failing on my part, no doubt).

@maxQ: Unless you went to high school for seven years like Charles De Mar I can't believe it's possible you covered every single Shakespeare play in class. Or why out of all of them King Lear would be the one left behind.

Most high schools (at least when I attended) did 1 a year. Nowadays you can probably go up to 2, especially if you're in a charter school focused on drama or english.
"Winter is Coming, Simba"

Tom Milnes
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:15 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Tom Milnes » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

+1 to the corrections that Ne3 should be Nf3 (or Nh3), and that the Black King and Queen's positions should be switched. These minor corrections don't detract much from the humor though; in my book this is one of the funniest XKCD comics to date!

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

My high school we did two a year - Romeo & Juliet and The Tempest freshman year, Julius Caesar and A Midsummer Night's Dream sophomore; Hamlet & Much Ado About Nothing junior, Macbeth and Taming of the Shrew senior year. We only spent about a month and a half on each though (not nearly enough time, in my opinion).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

maxQ
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby maxQ » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

SerMufasa wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:I don't know. I mean, I can understand not being familiar with the entirety of Henry V, but the St. Crispin's day speech is one of the most famous bits of English-language literature ever written. I still say it's a terrible shame that so many people here are apparently unfamiliar with it and the basic context behind it.


Sorry, should've clarified: the speech is popular and probably gets more "play" than the entire play. But typically when a speech is focused on, the purpose is memorization, not context and understanding. I actually have seen the speech before, but couldn't even tell you which play it was from (a failing on my part, no doubt).

@maxQ: Unless you went to high school for seven years like Charles De Mar I can't believe it's possible you covered every single Shakespeare play in class. Or why out of all of them King Lear would be the one left behind.

Most high schools (at least when I attended) did 1 a year. Nowadays you can probably go up to 2, especially if you're in a charter school focused on drama or english.



Well, we did start freshman year and went for four years. I will admit, that with the exception of Henry V which we read and watched, we only watched the rest of the Henry series in class. Richard II, too (read Richard III). Probably did about 7 a year.

I thought King Lear being left out was unfortunate and weird as well.

Misopogon
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:34 pm UTC

For Historical Accuracy

Postby Misopogon » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

Image
That is all.

Elirra
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:43 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Elirra » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:17 pm UTC

In the US my high school offered a semester long class on Shakespeare, in that time we covered Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Othello, Twelfth Night, Taming of the Shrew, Midsummer Night's Dream and Henry IV parts 1 and 2. Our British Literature class had MacBeth and I feel like somewhere in high school we read some Julius Caesar. Having all of them covered seems reasonable for 4 years of high school that focuses on Shakespeare.

Mokurai
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:09 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Mokurai » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:22 pm UTC

The truly weird thing about Agincourt, fought in 1415, is that England and France had fought nearly the same battle, including the roles of the French knights and the English and Welsh longbowmen, at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, early in the Hundred Years War. I had a terrible time in my semi-random study of history realizing that they were two different battles. Sort of like trying to remember that Upton Sinclair is not Sinclair Lewis, and then remembering which is which.

And yeah, nf5. Although the dots look like a technical mistake, I like them. At both Crécy and Agincourt, the longbowmen waited until the French chivalry were well down the field before firing their clouds of arrows.

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby keithl » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Dr. Diaphanous wrote:... Henry V, the English king, didn't have a queen at that time. ...


So, the chessboard is inaccurate, not because the black queen is on white, but because there was no black queen at the time of Agincourt. Henry's future queen, Catherine of Valois, was 13 years old, and the daughter of of the white queen and king. So I took the liberty of replacing the black queen with the princess, in the color and square of her birth:

Image

Henry got Catherine as part of the peace settlement, 6 years later, when she was 19. Or since this is chess, the "piece" settlement.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby ahammel » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:54 pm UTC

Monika wrote:Gambit means a type of chess opening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit. Actually this is not a gambit because nothing is sacrificed. But it's just combining a chess term with a real battle term.

It's totally a gambit: White sacs both his knights. It probably worked about about as well for him as for the French.

maxQ wrote:I had a LOT of Shakespeare in High School English. A lot. I think I had read everything except King Lear before college.

You read Two Gentlemen of Verona and King John, but not Lear?

*dies*
Last edited by ahammel on Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Eshru
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 3:51 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Eshru » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

VanI wrote:
Antior wrote:What do those arrows in the chess notation mean?

Ah yes. The arrows represent arrows.

Sometimes an arrow is just an arrow.

Edit: As far as variants are concerned, bughouse and the 3 and 4 player boards come to mind.
Last edited by Eshru on Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

zebazga
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby zebazga » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:05 pm UTC

I was thrilled to get the reference. Loved the pawns with longbows. Glad to see earlier posters referenced the mud, which was a large factor with the calvary.

I recommend the fiction book Agincourt (or Azincourt) by Bernard Cornwall for anyone remotely interested in pursuing this. The audiobook has a nice reader.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azincourt_(novel)

kchoze
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:47 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby kchoze » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

AdrianChallinor wrote:For an Englishman, this is hilarious. One if the funniest that XKCD comics in recent times.

For the rest of you, the English Army of Henry IV was forced in to battle by the French. This was part of the 100 year war and a long time before Europe had found the lands formerly known as English/Spanish colonies to the west, in 1415.

The battle was supposed to be one sided: The French heavily out numbered the English, with many more knights, who were the heavy armour of the period. The English positioned themselves at the top of a gentle rise in the French countryside, not far from Bolougne. The French thought they were trapped.

The night before the battle it rained hard, turning the once gentle slope in to a quagmire. As the French knights charged the English lines, they became bogged down in mud. The English has a secret weapon: the Longbow. As it says, a much bigger bow than normal that could fire an arrow fitted with a heavy metal arrow head. The use of this bow took many months to perfect and required great strength. The power of the bow is that if pointed up, the arrow went very high and on its decent could generate enough energy to penetrate the French knights armour.

The knights fell, creating a mobile blockade for the next line of knights and a blood bath ensured. The English won a battle that they never should have won on paper.

Incidentally, it is also where the two-fingured salute comes from: The English archers waved two fingers at the French to show that they had both fingers needed to flight an arrow. The French, on capturing an Englishman, would cut off the forefinger and second finger of the right hand to prevent them being an archer.


The Longbow has been raised to the legendary status in England, but from what I've read from less biased sources, much of the longbow's claimed superiority is much exaggerated. For one thing, using good replicas, tests have demonstrated that the longbow couldn't penetrate the armor of knights. All reports talk of literally tens of thousands of arrows being launched in Agincourt, but it seems that they killed few French knights on horseback actually. What happened was that the arrows frightened and panicked horses, who weren't as armored as the knights on them. So the arrows, even if they didn't kill many knights, disrupted the charge. The French were forced to advance on foot, under a hail of arrows, walking in mud while wearing full armor. Nevertheless, they reached the English's defensive line and pushed it back for a while, but they were too tired for the mêlée. Also, most of French casualties came from prisoners being slaughtered by the English as they were fearing an assault from the French rearguard, during which the prisoners could rearm themselves and overwhelm the English... but to have so many prisoners, they must first have reached the mêlée, which means that they survived the arrows of the longbows.

What Agincourt proved was that a cohesive defensive line of disciplined infantrymen could hold and defeat a heavy cavalry charge (which had happened in the past but had been forgotten), that individual valor and strength could be defeated on the battlefield. Knights were penultimate warriors, they were born and raised for the fight, but they were not disciplined, they were there for personal glory and fought as individuals. The English infantry were more soldiers, they were trained to fight as a unit, man to man, knights would just completely slaughter them (as they did in the battle of Patay later in the 100 year war, where a 5 000-men English army made up mostly of longbowmen were slaughtered by 1 500 French knights, as the knights charged before the English set up their defensive line of stakes, the English lost 2 500 men, the French, less than 100).

Other infantry armies did the same in the Middle Ages, the Swiss pikemen defeated knights regularly in that era for instance. The domination of infantry in European warfare had come, for around 2 centuries after, wars would be fought by massed infantry formations of pikes and firearms, the best amongst them the Spanish tercio, which would be defeated by lined musketeers as firearms became more common, a tactic that would dominate the battlefield until the 19th century.

puddintopia
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:42 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby puddintopia » Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:44 pm UTC

Please, please, please, please, please make a shirt from this comic. My family is replete with chess-playing history buffs, and a shirt with the "Knights" comic would absolutely MAKE Christmas.

Thanks!

Pud'n

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:04 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:These variants are pretty fun, but I don't think they really add a strategic dimension in the same way, unless you count "hey, let's play connect 4 instead because I'm better at that" as a strategy.


There is still nothing stopping people from doing that. He said the game would be more popular if people can do that. Well, people can. People can go buy a chessboard and chess set and do whatever the hell they want with it.

People can, and people do. Chess-players like to toy around with the rules of the game, and there are lots of variations that are played all the time.

There's absorption chess, where a piece gains the abilities of every piece it captures.
There's atomic chess, where every capture results in all surrounding pieces being destroyed.
There's cylinder chess, which connects the left and right side of the board.
There's Kriegspiel, where you can not see the opposing pieces (great fun, but you need either a computer or 3 boards and a referee to play it).

And I go on. There's dozens of variations. Most aren't played very seriously. But a few are.

There's loser's chess, where the goal is to lose all pieces. This varation is played quite seriously by many people, there's even tournaments.

The greatest chess variation of all time however is Bughouse, where you play 2 vs 2, and pieces you capture can be used by your team mate. It's awesome.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

maxQ
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby maxQ » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:14 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
maxQ wrote:I had a LOT of Shakespeare in High School English. A lot. I think I had read everything except King Lear before college.

You read Two Gentlemen of Verona and King John, but not Lear?

*dies*


Two Gentlemen, yes. Remember the teacher talking about how a lot of people have a low opinion of it but he likes it and was going to teach it.

To be honest, King John might be another I missed... don't remember it. And I know most of the lesser known ones (Cymbeline, Measure for Measure, etc.) I didn't cover in HS. Lear was the only "major" one that I remember not reading.

echosam
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby echosam » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:44 pm UTC

Historic reality: Longbowmen won Agincourt, but not with longbows. Modern tests show that the English "Bodkin point" tipped arrow was unable to penetrate the French heavy armor.

The battle of Agincourt was fought in a foot of mud, with the French attacking the English uphill on foot. The deep mud rendered horses useless. There was only one direction the French could use to ap[proach the English, the other sides of the hill were too steep for the Knights, but not for the lightly armored English archers.

So, French knights walked up the hill to attack, and sunk 8-10 inches in mud. they had steel boots.... modern tests show it would require almost 400 ft/lb of force to pull a knights boot out of 10" of mud (steel boots do not allow air to replace the removed boot readily, so.. well you are all smart, you get the idea... think large sucking sound every time a French knight tried to pick up his foot.). So the French walked very slowly. And were exhausted when they got to the English.

English Longbowmen didn't wear armor, and wore cloth boots, which allowed them to walk reletively freely around the battlefield (compared to the French). So, the Longbowmen simply came around the steeper sides of the hill, where the knights couldn’t go, flanked the stuck French, knocked over the immobile knights and stabbed them.

The legend of the Longbow at Agincourt is cool, but untrue... arrogance, deep mud and long knives doomed the French.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby J Thomas » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
maxQ wrote:I had a LOT of Shakespeare in High School English. A lot. I think I had read everything except King Lear before college.

You read Two Gentlemen of Verona and King John, but not Lear?

*dies*


Not to mention Titus Andronicus.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

Ben's Brook
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:15 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Ben's Brook » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

Long story short, the Battle of Agincourt reaffirmed some old tactical realities and also added at least one new one.

The first, is that an enemy on the high ground is a victor on the high ground. KoTH contests do not go well if the enemy is already the King.
Secondly, Charging directly up said hill (while muddy) directly into the enemies's spikes and pikeman also, again, reaffirmed why cavalry simply should not charge straight into enemy formations from the front.
And the final new reality is that if the enemy has superior firepower, engaging him directly instead of attempting to maneuver is a great way to end up with enormous casualties.

User avatar
thorgold
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:36 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby thorgold » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

I thought it was pretty clever. Then again, history and warfare buff, but still.
You can refuse to think, but you can't refuse the consequences of not thinking.

User avatar
Nylonathatep
NOT Nyarlathotep
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Nylonathatep » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:40 pm UTC

Technically Bishop are the representation of archers in Chess; They can threaten pieces behind the rank and file, but they are vunerable in a direct confrontation.

Diadem wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
Netreker0 wrote:These variants are pretty fun, but I don't think they really add a strategic dimension in the same way, unless you count "hey, let's play connect 4 instead because I'm better at that" as a strategy.


There is still nothing stopping people from doing that. He said the game would be more popular if people can do that. Well, people can. People can go buy a chessboard and chess set and do whatever the hell they want with it.

People can, and people do. Chess-players like to toy around with the rules of the game, and there are lots of variations that are played all the time.

There's absorption chess, where a piece gains the abilities of every piece it captures.
There's atomic chess, where every capture results in all surrounding pieces being destroyed.
There's cylinder chess, which connects the left and right side of the board.
There's Kriegspiel, where you can not see the opposing pieces (great fun, but you need either a computer or 3 boards and a referee to play it).

And I go on. There's dozens of variations. Most aren't played very seriously. But a few are.

There's loser's chess, where the goal is to lose all pieces. This varation is played quite seriously by many people, there's even tournaments.

The greatest chess variation of all time however is Bughouse, where you play 2 vs 2, and pieces you capture can be used by your team mate. It's awesome.


There's Bobby Fischer's 960 chess, and then there's Chess Boxing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing

kensey
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:17 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby kensey » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:43 pm UTC

All the guff about Ne3 vs. Nf3, and not one of you has noted that it's properly "N-KB3"? You damn kids get off my starting rank!

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby ahammel » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

kensey wrote:All the guff about Ne3 vs. Nf3, and not one of you has noted that it's properly "N-KB3"? You damn kids get off my starting rank!

Thou varlet! The only correct notation is "the white king commands his owne knight into the third house before his owne bishop".
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Scars Unseen
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:58 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby Scars Unseen » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Scars Unseen wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:There is still nothing stopping people from doing that. He said the game would be more popular if people can do that. Well, people can. People can go buy a chessboard and chess set and do whatever the hell they want with it.


Isn’t any tabletop RPG, in essence, a very very modified variant of chess? ^^


Not really. Or at least not in any way that is more meaningful than saying that World War II was a variant of "tag." Like chess, tabletop role playing requires you to think, and it can, but does not necessarily involve moving pieces across a surface. That's about where the similarity ends.


Actually, most table-top RPGs can be traced back to table-top miniatures wargaming (i.e. predecessors of Warhammer and its ilk), which were given 'role playing' rules by the likes of the Great Gygax.

(see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game))


And war can be traced back to people chasing people down and touching them with sticks of varying design. Neither origin is particularly relevant to the state of things now.

highlyverbal
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:43 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby highlyverbal » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:51 pm UTC

Monika wrote:Gambit means a type of chess opening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit. Actually this is not a gambit because nothing is sacrificed. But it's just combining a chess term with a real battle term.


What is sacrificed in the opening called the Queen's Gambit? (you may have heard of it)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:56 pm UTC

highlyverbal wrote:
Monika wrote:Gambit means a type of chess opening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambit. Actually this is not a gambit because nothing is sacrificed. But it's just combining a chess term with a real battle term.


What is sacrificed in the opening called the Queen's Gambit? (you may have heard of it)


I'm not getting your point.

In the queen's gambit (assuming black accepts the gambit), white sacrifices its c-pawn. So?

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby ahammel » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:00 pm UTC

highlyverbal wrote:What is sacrificed in the opening called the Queen's Gambit? (you may have heard of it)

A pawn. It's a pseudo-sacrifice in most variations, though. The QG is probably so named because it looks like a mirrored King's Gambit, which is a true gambit (in the sense that Black can keep the pawn if she likes).
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

clockworkbookreader
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:11 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby clockworkbookreader » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:25 pm UTC

Not all pawns are "pwnd"...

And since we're getting all geeked out on this, let's talk Agincourt. There are two reasons that the longbowmen were so effective: 1. The terrain narrowed and funneled the French charge into a killing ground for the bowmen. 2. That the ground was muddy and soft, preventing the cavalry and the infantry following on from attaining effective speed to get through the killing ground to close for melee. An innovations in warfare protected the archers (stakes driven into the ground to prevent cavalry from just rolling over the English formation)....

.... and France aristocracy had its collective butt handed to it by the yeomen from the Isles. The French lost, conservatively, 5 or 6 for every 1 the English lost, not counting the prisoners put to the sword by Henry at the end of the battle (he did this to prevent them from taking up arms against him once more since he did not have the army to effectively police the prisoners.
In the event of pneumothorax, stab me with an 18g angiocath just above the second rib in the midclavicular line.
Thank you.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby J L » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:33 pm UTC

mvp wrote:As someone who plays chess regularly, I love this comic. Everything makes sense to me, except for the errors already mentioned: 1.Nf3 should be the first move, and the black king and queen should be swapped. But since we're already wasting too much time discussing this, we might as well go to town. For instance, what is the lazy g7 pawn doing without a bow, and how come I'm counting 15 arrows (there appear to me to be two arrows toward the upper right of the c3 knight) when there are supposedly 7 (or 8 if you count g7) archers? :P


Obviously they shot twice ... and g7 threw away his bow after the first volley ;)

Have to agree, really fun when you're playing lots of online chess.

highlyverbal
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:43 am UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby highlyverbal » Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:35 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:In the queen's gambit (assuming black accepts the gambit), white sacrifices its c-pawn. So?


False, there is no way that Black can hold onto the extra pawn against a White player determined to regain it. All serious lines of the QGA involve regaining the pawn.

Try again. Soon, you will learn that the label "gambit" in chess is a bit looser than originally claimed.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:00 am UTC

highlyverbal wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:In the queen's gambit (assuming black accepts the gambit), white sacrifices its c-pawn. So?


False, there is no way that Black can hold onto the extra pawn against a White player determined to regain it. All serious lines of the QGA involve regaining the pawn.



I realize this, but I'm still failing to see your point. Gambit is just a word. Who cares? What point are you trying to make?

rcox1
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby rcox1 » Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:50 am UTC

SW15243 wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Yeah after skimming that Wiki article, this battle was the first to make predominant use of longbowman. But ... so what? If there is something funny, insightful, or otherwise worthwhile about this comic, I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, okay. But then it's not really a 'gambit' is it? It's sort of like the 'bring a gun to a knife fight gambit'. It's not a gambit, it's just good sense.
I also still don't get the title text.


I am thankful that my high schol and college education focused on problems solving, not rules. It always seemed strange to me that games, with rigid rules, were deemed to be valuable for any over the age of 10. Certainly for kids games are useful because kids need to learn that rules exist, and they need to followed, but at some point we need to teach independent thought and innovation.

I am often asked why I don't play chess. Because I spend my day solving real problems. I am not saying that chess is bad, or we should not teach kids to play chess, or we should not have chess clubs in high school, just that I would rather see kids building independent projects that learning that life is limited by rules. Because it is isn't. Life is not a football field. Life is not a zero sum game. Life is incredible, and flexible. And those say that I can find out how inflexible life is by robbing a bank, why don't you honestly look at the number of convictions and jail time that the executives of Countrywide, JPMorgan, and Barclays.

FoxOko
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby FoxOko » Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:34 am UTC

REBUTTAL:

Everyone (well the chess geeks anyway) is so hung up on the "mistakes" in this comic that not one person realized that Randall on many occasions will sacrifice visual precision for better aesthetics as a whole. It is a comic mind you... not a virtual simulation representing a real chess board in which pawns on one side are given longbows.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1078: "Knights"

Postby blowfishhootie » Sat Jul 07, 2012 3:05 am UTC

rcox1 wrote:
SW15243 wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:Yeah after skimming that Wiki article, this battle was the first to make predominant use of longbowman. But ... so what? If there is something funny, insightful, or otherwise worthwhile about this comic, I'm not seeing it.

Yeah, okay. But then it's not really a 'gambit' is it? It's sort of like the 'bring a gun to a knife fight gambit'. It's not a gambit, it's just good sense.
I also still don't get the title text.


I am thankful that my high schol and college education focused on problems solving, not rules. It always seemed strange to me that games, with rigid rules, were deemed to be valuable for any over the age of 10. Certainly for kids games are useful because kids need to learn that rules exist, and they need to followed, but at some point we need to teach independent thought and innovation.

I am often asked why I don't play chess. Because I spend my day solving real problems. I am not saying that chess is bad, or we should not teach kids to play chess, or we should not have chess clubs in high school, just that I would rather see kids building independent projects that learning that life is limited by rules. Because it is isn't. Life is not a football field. Life is not a zero sum game. Life is incredible, and flexible.


Amazing. You go on this rant about how we shouldn't play chess because life is either living in the fake world of "games" or spending the day "solving real problems." Those two ideas are in contrast to you. But then your conclusion is that life is "flexible." What? Which is it? Is it super black-and-white, where every moment needs to be dedicated to "solving real problems" (whatever the hell that is), or is it flexible and open to independent thought?

People shouldn't play chess (a rule you've made up), because life is flexible and not subject to rules. It makes no sense.

Also, chess is no more bound by rules than anything else in life. If you play in a professional tournament it is, sure, but what percentage of chess is played in professional tournaments? Just read this thread for myriad examples of variance within the game of chess. It is possible to be creative and think independently even when playing a "game." But please, don't let me get in the way of your pathetic love of patting yourself on the back. I mean, you solve "real world problems," unlike the rest of the world. Hooray!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests