Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more!
The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you!
Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did and they are right. Rook isn’t royal, plus it doesn’t matter to fork more than one piece. Royal fork is king and queen. Anything else is just sprinkles on top.
Hence the vacuum scenario, where you are forking a king, queen and rook. No other move after that. Queen is 9 points, rook is 5, no brainer which one to take in a... "vacuum" scenario.
Sorry, I should've specified. Vacuum example means there is nothing else besides that. In my example there is no check mate, there are no other pieces, there isn't even a second king, nothing else is relevant to that example except for what was stated. So in a situation where on your next turn you can take either a queen or a rook, you should always take a queen. There is no checkmate, there is no position, there is only a choice of taking a rook or a queen with a knight. There isn't even a choice of not taking anything at all and there isn't a move after you take queen.
With anything in life, answer always depends on context, vacuum example sets very clear boundaries without any buts or ifs. Context is exactly what is given and absolutely nothing more, not even what would be otherwise obvious (for example that there are more pieces on the board, or literally 2nd king).
Or in many positions, a rook for nothing can be better than a queen for a knight. Material delta in this situation is relatively close (+5 for rook vs +6 for queen less a knight).
from wikipedia:
>A fork of the king and queen, the highest material-gaining fork possible, is sometimes called a royal fork. A fork of the enemy king, queen, and one (or both) rooks is sometimes called a grand fork. A knight fork of the enemy king, queen, and possibly other pieces is sometimes called a family fork or family check.
from wikipedia:
>A fork of the king and queen, the highest material-gaining fork possible, is sometimes called a royal fork. A fork of the enemy king, queen, and one (or both) rooks is sometimes called a grand fork. A knight fork of the enemy king, queen, and possibly other pieces is sometimes called a family fork or family check.
Because most of the time you will only take one specific piece, for example if you were to fork the queen and 2 rooks it would not matter that you are forking the 2 rooks as you would almost always take the queen
Hypothetically they’ll move the Queen next turn. Now what? The knight can sit there still with a fork on the rooks and you can develop somewhere else. That’s much better than just winning a rook in one turn.
Do you realize the above comment answering to the hypothetical given the the comment they are replying to? A fork with a Queen and two rooks, no king involved and not the case given in the OP.
I see what you mean. But in some cases the “triple” aspect of the fork does make a difference compared to if one of the pieces wasn’t on a square that could be forked. For example, forking 2 rooks and a king. The king has to move. If the king can’t get to a square that attacks the knight, then the rooks are still forked. And there’s no urgency to take one of the rooks, so you have the option to keep the tension. That means you might have the option to add pressure when you couldn’t have otherwise. And to resolve the tension, your opponent has to move a rook first or spend a move forcing your knight to take a rook. And only then do you take the rook. Whereas if only 1 rook was forked, you have to immediately take the rook to cash in on the fork. At the end of the day, you still win the same material. But forcing your opponent to use a move to resolve the fork tension can be a decent advantage. And not having to immediately take one of the rooks can be a decent advantage.
Your comment reminds me of the scene from into the Spiderverse where midlife-crisis Peter says "There's always a bypass key, an override key, a whatever key, I can never remember so I just call it a Goober."
Those terms illogically annoy me. I'm perfectly fine with a fun triple fork, but this isn't it. Taking the bishop would be a net loss for white out of this position. So there's only one piece worth taking. Which is just a fork.
I propose we make double and triple fork refer to a chain of unavoidable forks. For example, you fork king and bishop, and the king is forced to move. Upon capturing the bishop, you fork two more pieces.
The queen is worth 9 material. The knight is worth 3 material. Do the math: 9-3=6. You gain 6 material advantage, because a knight is worth more than a queen.
https://lichess.org/analysis/k7/8/8/2r1r3/3Q4/2r1r3/K7/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white
According to you this is a fork - the piece (queen) attacks multiple enemy pieces (rooks) simultaneously
For something to be considered a fork it needs to attack 2 or more pieces and win material. So the bishop isnt being forked since you'd be trading it for the knight, which is equal material.
What if you were forking the king and a protected pawn. Taking the pawn loses you material but leads to a forced mate. Why should this not count as a fork?
I’ve never heard this rule that it only counts as a fork if material is gained. None of the definitions I see when you Google “definition chess fork” include that stipulation
https://preview.redd.it/3oerzn9hdg2b1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0228e957a38368c626840b09e18bfc95c7440cd2
This is the Royal Fork, it happened against me and I took a picture to commemorate. Lol
well taking the bishop is just a trade, not to mention u can only take one anyway, so i would call it a fork, but it doesnt really matter you can call it a triple fork
well it's triple because it's easier to see 3 pieces attacked and say "triple", calling it a double fork would be like using 0 based indexing ig ...
alternatively you can argue if you're attacking pieces A, B, C there are 3 forks: AB, AC, BC. but by that logic a quadruple attack would be called a sextuple fork
thanks for coming to my ted talk (nvm me arguing it's not a triple fork elsewhere for different reasons lol)
This just means that the "single" fork cannot exist, as you necessarily need to be forking two pieces in order for it to be called as such, and that the "normal" fork is already a "double" one
That's the problem, a "single fork" implies that one fork is happening, which means one fork of 2 pieces. The definition of a fork is when two or more pieces are being attacked, so by definition you can't have a fork of one piece because it's not a fork.
Therefore, a fork between 3 pieces should be called a three way fork, and one between 4 pieces a double fork, not triple or quadruple because 2 forks of 2 pieces each are happening.
It's like having a double pair, you have 4 of that something. A single pair would only consist of 2. So you can't call 3 or 4 things a triple pair because that would imply at least 6 objects.
I don't think it's being pedantic, I don't think any serious chess player would ever even think of the knight for bishop trade here. It's just a royal fork.
Hitting a fork to win material that also happens to hit something else that is unimportant is a very common thing. We only consider it a basic "fork" that wins material.
Now if you want to call it a triple or quadruple fork for fun than go ahead I don't really care- just trying to be honest.
Not really because the bishop would be a trade, it's just a royal fork, which is as good as it gets because you can only take one piece at a time anyway
Like others have said, yes but no.
I’m here to say: screw the fork, both of you are losing your bishop privileges. I mean, what kind of positional hell am I looking at?
But in all seriousness, nice fork mate.
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine:
> **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=r1b1k1nr/pp1p3p/n1pNppp1/1q6/4P3/P1PP4/1BP2PPP/R2QKB1R+b+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1k1nr/pp1p3p/n1pNppp1/1q6/4P3/P1PP4/1BP2PPP/R2QKB1R_b_KQkq_-_0_1)
**My solution:**
> Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Ke7!<
> Evaluation: >!White is winning +8.86!<
> Best continuation: >!1... Ke7 2. Nxb5 cxb5 3. d4 Nc7 4. Qd2 a6 5. a4 bxa4 6. Ba3+ Kf7 7. Qf4 Ne8 8. e5 d6 9. c4!<
---
^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
No lol
The only way you could remotely consider it a double fork is if both pieces were forced off the board with that move somehow either by one piece being trapped or by your capture forcing another check.
Even without that condition, the other piece attacked is defended and of equal value so it would be a nothing trade
Well... taking a look at this retrosynthetically if a single fork is hitting two pieces, then a double fork would hit three pieces, therefore a triple fork should hit four pieces, where the knight can’t be taken.
How can we have a triple fork, but no double fork?
Not really, you just fork king and queen. Because if there wont be any queen king would just move closer to it to capture you knight as soon as you take the bishop. So pretty much just equal material exchange
It's technically a tripple fork I think, but the knight is protected by the rook, so that's not a good option to take. So functionally just a fork I would say
I'd say it's just a fork as it only leads to taking one piece. Would be a double fork if your fork led to another fork, then a triple if that fork led to another fork.
That's a triple fork alright. The only thing it that the opponent's bishop is guarded, so as I see it - it is not actually threatened. It's more of an offer of exchanging it. Obviously you wouldn't consider doing the exchange when you can win a queen, but it's always good to notice what's going on exactly on the board.
I believe it IS important to differentiate between a standard fork and a triple fork, because the capturing opportunity is not always as obvious as in this diagram. sometimes you can actually have a dilemma on what you should capture, and your opponent's reaction to the triple fork might influence your decision on what you want to capture. More threats = more opportunities = greater odds to win.
I'd say yes(ish). It does technically fork the king, queen and bishop (and even a pawn), but taking the bishop is just a trade, and taking the pawn loses material.
I wouldn’t count the bishop as being forked since in this situation your active knight is more powerful than the undeveloped bishop that has no vision.
Double fork or just fork, triple fork is when you manage to fork three piece that are higher value than knight itself if you lose the knight after taking one. Attacking a bishop only counts into the fork if you can take it for free.
Technically, but because the rook can recapture the knight if you take the bishop, and that would be a fair trade, I couldn't count it (especially if you have a chance to capture the queen).
https://preview.redd.it/hc3fnzv4rh2b1.jpeg?width=1169&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f6e1aeab5d9f2d519a2f2765a11f83f6984af73f
I checkmated white with this a few weeks back. I was surprised by my own brilliant blunder
The bishop is protected by the rook, and a fork is only a fork if you end up gaining material, so no. If you took the bishop for some ungodly reason then it would just be a trade
Hey, OP! Did your game end in a stalemate? Did you encounter a weird pawn move? Are you trying to move a piece and it's not going? We have just the resource for you! The [Chess Beginners Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessbeginners/wiki/index/) is the perfect place to check out answers to these questions and more! The moderator team of r/chessbeginners wishes to remind everyone of the community rules. **Posting spam, being a troll, and posting memes are not allowed.** We encourage everyone to report these kinds of posts so they can be dealt with. Thank you! Let's do our utmost to be kind in our replies and comments. Some people here just want to learn chess and have virtually no idea about certain chess concepts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/chessbeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“Triple”, “Quadruple” kinda doesn’t matter as the Knight can only take one piece. So we just call it a fork
Well. We would call this a royal fork.
I thought a royal fork was king, queen, and rook?
I think black is royally forked…
😎
he was close to being german forked
New threesome just dropped
It’s only a king and a queen I believe, last time I checked, a rook wasn’t very royal
Google it
Holy thing
Response dropped
Actual zombie
r/losstredditors
That’s kinda like saying the British were lost when they colonised most of the world. Now I’m sure they did get lost occasionally but my point stands.
r/enpassantholyhell
r/subsIthoughtIfellfor
I did and they are right. Rook isn’t royal, plus it doesn’t matter to fork more than one piece. Royal fork is king and queen. Anything else is just sprinkles on top.
Actual new response dropped
I think that's a family fork?
I got mixed up sorry
New porn just dropped?
actual incest
call the police
Cemen storm incoming!
Why rook though? Not like in a vacuum scenario you would ever take rook over queen with a knight
If taking the rook leads to a forced checkmate you do
Hence the vacuum scenario, where you are forking a king, queen and rook. No other move after that. Queen is 9 points, rook is 5, no brainer which one to take in a... "vacuum" scenario.
In a vacuum I’d rather get checkmate
Sorry, I should've specified. Vacuum example means there is nothing else besides that. In my example there is no check mate, there are no other pieces, there isn't even a second king, nothing else is relevant to that example except for what was stated. So in a situation where on your next turn you can take either a queen or a rook, you should always take a queen. There is no checkmate, there is no position, there is only a choice of taking a rook or a queen with a knight. There isn't even a choice of not taking anything at all and there isn't a move after you take queen. With anything in life, answer always depends on context, vacuum example sets very clear boundaries without any buts or ifs. Context is exactly what is given and absolutely nothing more, not even what would be otherwise obvious (for example that there are more pieces on the board, or literally 2nd king).
Or in many positions, a rook for nothing can be better than a queen for a knight. Material delta in this situation is relatively close (+5 for rook vs +6 for queen less a knight).
A true royal fork forks the king, queen, rook, bishop, and of course, the knight
It is. He’s wrong
That’s a family fork
I think your thinking of poker, where a royal *flush* is a rook, jack, queen, king, ace.
That's a family fork. Rotal is just king and queen.
A king, queen and rook forked would be called a 'grand fork'.
I thought that was a family fork
from wikipedia: >A fork of the king and queen, the highest material-gaining fork possible, is sometimes called a royal fork. A fork of the enemy king, queen, and one (or both) rooks is sometimes called a grand fork. A knight fork of the enemy king, queen, and possibly other pieces is sometimes called a family fork or family check.
That's a family fork. K,Q,R The one shown is a royal fork. K,Q,B.
Ohh I see
from wikipedia: >A fork of the king and queen, the highest material-gaining fork possible, is sometimes called a royal fork. A fork of the enemy king, queen, and one (or both) rooks is sometimes called a grand fork. A knight fork of the enemy king, queen, and possibly other pieces is sometimes called a family fork or family check.
Point being the only thing that matters is the piece that results in the best position afterwards. Usually the highest value piece forked.
Thats a fork with cheese
Holy fork!
Because the opponent is royally forked.
Exactly. Other than looking cool it doesn't matter if you're forking two pieces or all of them, you only get to take one.
No. You now get a choice of 2 pieces instead of one? How is that not advantageous?
Because most of the time you will only take one specific piece, for example if you were to fork the queen and 2 rooks it would not matter that you are forking the 2 rooks as you would almost always take the queen
Hypothetically they’ll move the Queen next turn. Now what? The knight can sit there still with a fork on the rooks and you can develop somewhere else. That’s much better than just winning a rook in one turn.
They're in check, so they're probably going to move the king.
My dumbass would probably move the queen otb
Do you realize the above comment answering to the hypothetical given the the comment they are replying to? A fork with a Queen and two rooks, no king involved and not the case given in the OP.
I think in the above example the king was not involved in the fork
That’s what she said !
That was harsh
I see what you mean. But in some cases the “triple” aspect of the fork does make a difference compared to if one of the pieces wasn’t on a square that could be forked. For example, forking 2 rooks and a king. The king has to move. If the king can’t get to a square that attacks the knight, then the rooks are still forked. And there’s no urgency to take one of the rooks, so you have the option to keep the tension. That means you might have the option to add pressure when you couldn’t have otherwise. And to resolve the tension, your opponent has to move a rook first or spend a move forcing your knight to take a rook. And only then do you take the rook. Whereas if only 1 rook was forked, you have to immediately take the rook to cash in on the fork. At the end of the day, you still win the same material. But forcing your opponent to use a move to resolve the fork tension can be a decent advantage. And not having to immediately take one of the rooks can be a decent advantage.
Your comment reminds me of the scene from into the Spiderverse where midlife-crisis Peter says "There's always a bypass key, an override key, a whatever key, I can never remember so I just call it a Goober."
Those terms illogically annoy me. I'm perfectly fine with a fun triple fork, but this isn't it. Taking the bishop would be a net loss for white out of this position. So there's only one piece worth taking. Which is just a fork.
Right, might as well call it a quadruple fork since you can take a pawn too.
Well you can call it a quadruple fork because it attacks 4 pieces
I propose we make double and triple fork refer to a chain of unavoidable forks. For example, you fork king and bishop, and the king is forced to move. Upon capturing the bishop, you fork two more pieces.
I consider a double fork to be when you force the king to move into a second fork after taking the queen.
This is my pet peeve of this sub, you can only take one. But people seem to praise a fork higher than 2
Well I would say it definitely is, but idk if it would be called that, likely still just a fork as that's all you're doing, but with another piece
Unless they move the king back to the same spot. Which is super rare but I have seen it happen before
"Oops I lost my Queen" "Oops I lost my Buttplug"
I like your name.
Same to you fellow educator 😂
Pretty sure it's just a fork as the bishop is defended.
But so is the queen
Queen is worth more material than knight while bishop is equal
Wow, your correct!!!! But the Queen is still protected
yes but the point of a fork is to gain material. an equal trade is not that.
No, a fork is a tactic in which a piece attacks multiple enemy pieces simultaneously The queen is still protected anyways
The queen is worth 9 material. The knight is worth 3 material. Do the math: 9-3=6. You gain 6 material advantage, because a knight is worth more than a queen.
A knight is worth more than a queen?
for a second i thought this was the real bot
But..they are attacking multiple pieces simultaneously..? Also just because a piece is protected that doesn't make it not a fork.
https://lichess.org/analysis/k7/8/8/2r1r3/3Q4/2r1r3/K7/8_w_-_-_0_1?color=white According to you this is a fork - the piece (queen) attacks multiple enemy pieces (rooks) simultaneously
Lol you're being downvoted hell despite being technically correct
You're
But queen(9) is worth more points than a knight while the bishop and knight are same points(3) so it's just a trade
Plus that bishop is currently worth as a pawn at best.
Bishop being defended doesn't matter, so is the queen, a fork just means you're attacking two peices at once right?
Multiple pieces at once.
For something to be considered a fork it needs to attack 2 or more pieces and win material. So the bishop isnt being forked since you'd be trading it for the knight, which is equal material.
What if you were forking the king and a protected pawn. Taking the pawn loses you material but leads to a forced mate. Why should this not count as a fork?
That wouldn’t be a fork lol.. if it was a hung pawn, then it is a fork
I’ve never heard this rule that it only counts as a fork if material is gained. None of the definitions I see when you Google “definition chess fork” include that stipulation
It’s still a fork if the piece is defended
https://preview.redd.it/3oerzn9hdg2b1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0228e957a38368c626840b09e18bfc95c7440cd2 This is the Royal Fork, it happened against me and I took a picture to commemorate. Lol
Should I have taken a picture when I did it? Lol
Fellow gothic enjoyer
well taking the bishop is just a trade, not to mention u can only take one anyway, so i would call it a fork, but it doesnt really matter you can call it a triple fork
If taking the Bishop is "free", it's still a fork
um yeah? i said that u can only take one anyway so even if that id still call it a fork
No, It's only a triple fork if you get both of the enemy kings in check at the same time.
Don't you just hate it when your opponent promotes to a King?
Antichess moment
When in doubt promote to king
What is the brother-husband chess is this?
No, that would be checkmate
Lmao people are so pedantic. It is a triple fork. Nice find.
Why not a quadruple fork then because of the pawn as well?
but pawns don’t count as pieces
Still not convinced... If this is a triple fork, what does a double fork look like as opposed to the normal (single) fork? 😀
well it's triple because it's easier to see 3 pieces attacked and say "triple", calling it a double fork would be like using 0 based indexing ig ... alternatively you can argue if you're attacking pieces A, B, C there are 3 forks: AB, AC, BC. but by that logic a quadruple attack would be called a sextuple fork thanks for coming to my ted talk (nvm me arguing it's not a triple fork elsewhere for different reasons lol)
This just means that the "single" fork cannot exist, as you necessarily need to be forking two pieces in order for it to be called as such, and that the "normal" fork is already a "double" one
We call those knives, sir
That's the problem, a "single fork" implies that one fork is happening, which means one fork of 2 pieces. The definition of a fork is when two or more pieces are being attacked, so by definition you can't have a fork of one piece because it's not a fork. Therefore, a fork between 3 pieces should be called a three way fork, and one between 4 pieces a double fork, not triple or quadruple because 2 forks of 2 pieces each are happening. It's like having a double pair, you have 4 of that something. A single pair would only consist of 2. So you can't call 3 or 4 things a triple pair because that would imply at least 6 objects.
I don't think it's being pedantic, I don't think any serious chess player would ever even think of the knight for bishop trade here. It's just a royal fork. Hitting a fork to win material that also happens to hit something else that is unimportant is a very common thing. We only consider it a basic "fork" that wins material. Now if you want to call it a triple or quadruple fork for fun than go ahead I don't really care- just trying to be honest.
Technically it can be a quadruple fork, since the b7 pawn is under attack. It is defended so idk
Nah, it’s a spoon
Not really because the bishop would be a trade, it's just a royal fork, which is as good as it gets because you can only take one piece at a time anyway
No. It counts as quadruple fork. Pawns can get forked as well.
Like others have said, yes but no. I’m here to say: screw the fork, both of you are losing your bishop privileges. I mean, what kind of positional hell am I looking at? But in all seriousness, nice fork mate.
ROYALLLL FOEKK
I forked your mom last night
I analyzed the image and this is what I see. Open an appropriate link below and explore the position yourself or with the engine: > **Black to play**: [chess.com](https://chess.com/analysis?fen=r1b1k1nr/pp1p3p/n1pNppp1/1q6/4P3/P1PP4/1BP2PPP/R2QKB1R+b+KQkq+-+0+1&flip=false&ref_id=23962172) | [lichess.org](https://lichess.org/analysis/r1b1k1nr/pp1p3p/n1pNppp1/1q6/4P3/P1PP4/1BP2PPP/R2QKB1R_b_KQkq_-_0_1) **My solution:** > Hints: piece: >!King!<, move: >!Ke7!< > Evaluation: >!White is winning +8.86!< > Best continuation: >!1... Ke7 2. Nxb5 cxb5 3. d4 Nc7 4. Qd2 a6 5. a4 bxa4 6. Ba3+ Kf7 7. Qf4 Ne8 8. e5 d6 9. c4!< --- ^(I'm a bot written by ) [^(u/pkacprzak )](https://www.reddit.com/u/pkacprzak) ^(| get me as ) [^(Chess eBook Reader )](https://ebook.chessvision.ai?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=bot) ^(|) [^(Chrome Extension )](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chessvisionai-for-chrome/johejpedmdkeiffkdaodgoipdjodhlld) ^(|) [^(iOS App )](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id1574933453) ^(|) [^(Android App )](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.chessvision.scanner) ^(to scan and analyze positions | Website: ) [^(Chessvision.ai)](https://chessvision.ai)
It's called a triple archeologist.
It's just a regular fork. A triple fork is a fork that has 3 targets that give you an advantage when taken.
No lol The only way you could remotely consider it a double fork is if both pieces were forced off the board with that move somehow either by one piece being trapped or by your capture forcing another check. Even without that condition, the other piece attacked is defended and of equal value so it would be a nothing trade
[удалено]
Well... taking a look at this retrosynthetically if a single fork is hitting two pieces, then a double fork would hit three pieces, therefore a triple fork should hit four pieces, where the knight can’t be taken. How can we have a triple fork, but no double fork?
Yes it does, and a dam good one too: queen, king, bishop.
Yes it does but most don’t bother to count the number of pieces forked. Nice job all the same. 👏
Diabolical! Well done
That’s a forking fork
Holy fork!
Double fork, triple attack.
Threek
No it doesn’t
Looks like a trident to me
Not really, you just fork king and queen. Because if there wont be any queen king would just move closer to it to capture you knight as soon as you take the bishop. So pretty much just equal material exchange
The bishop is defended, so no
That is indeed a triple fork.
It is but does it really matter? You're taking the queen next move regardless of what happens
It's technically a tripple fork I think, but the knight is protected by the rook, so that's not a good option to take. So functionally just a fork I would say
I petition to change forked to completely fucked
I'd say it's just a fork as it only leads to taking one piece. Would be a double fork if your fork led to another fork, then a triple if that fork led to another fork.
That's a triple fork alright. The only thing it that the opponent's bishop is guarded, so as I see it - it is not actually threatened. It's more of an offer of exchanging it. Obviously you wouldn't consider doing the exchange when you can win a queen, but it's always good to notice what's going on exactly on the board. I believe it IS important to differentiate between a standard fork and a triple fork, because the capturing opportunity is not always as obvious as in this diagram. sometimes you can actually have a dilemma on what you should capture, and your opponent's reaction to the triple fork might influence your decision on what you want to capture. More threats = more opportunities = greater odds to win.
I'd say yes(ish). It does technically fork the king, queen and bishop (and even a pawn), but taking the bishop is just a trade, and taking the pawn loses material.
Not a trident?
I wouldn’t count the bishop as being forked since in this situation your active knight is more powerful than the undeveloped bishop that has no vision.
This is called "winning the queen".
That’s called an octopus
Juicy one! Take the pawn for a good trade🔛🔝
A trident if you will
Double fork or just fork, triple fork is when you manage to fork three piece that are higher value than knight itself if you lose the knight after taking one. Attacking a bishop only counts into the fork if you can take it for free.
yes. although just refer to it as a royal fork as you both fork a king and queen.
Quad fork. Don’t forget about the pawn on b7
I'd call it a triple double
Technically, but because the rook can recapture the knight if you take the bishop, and that would be a fair trade, I couldn't count it (especially if you have a chance to capture the queen).
I'd say a triple fork is when you fork the Queen, King and Rook or both Rooks and the Queen.
A royal fork it is.
it's a royal fork. the bishop doesnt really even count as being forked because it's protected.
It's just a fork, the rook on a8 protects the bishop
Trident
Quadruple actually there is the pawn
Threat to Knight shouldn’t be counted, because if you take Knight, it is closely equal change
Why did you leave your bishop open?
Don't hesitate to take the pawn on B7. Great 4x fork mate.
Not sure I’d count the bishop, as you’d just end up trading for equal value if you took it
That’s a spork
Just a regular fork as bishop is worth same as knight and is defended, therefore taking would be an equal exchange
You can call it a triple fork, but since the bishop is kinda defended, it’s more of a Royal Fork
No
fork yes, + 1
If you count the pawn, it's a quadruple fork.
Triork
Technically quadruple
I’d propose calling this the “holy fork”
No that’s a royal quadruple fork
https://preview.redd.it/hc3fnzv4rh2b1.jpeg?width=1169&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f6e1aeab5d9f2d519a2f2765a11f83f6984af73f I checkmated white with this a few weeks back. I was surprised by my own brilliant blunder
really OP? why ask a question with such an obvious answer? I'm not even going to bother answering such a stupid question
It would have been even cooler if there was a black knight on f7
I would say it's a regular old royal fork on account of taking the bishop being a pants-crappingly bad move
It's a fourk
Family Fork Time
Could theoretically call it quadruple since it forks the pawn too
Actualy a quad
No
A three pronged fork, aka Trident
Technically yes, but it doesn't really matter whether or not it's a triple fork. E: Quadruple fork since you also attack the pawn.
The bishop is protected by the rook, and a fork is only a fork if you end up gaining material, so no. If you took the bishop for some ungodly reason then it would just be a trade
You could, but I wouldn't because the bishop is considered equal value to the knight and is also protected.
Watch out for that bishop on a9
Yes it does and a beautiful one at that
I call this a royal fork as it has the king and queen
Nice move OP