Answers.Body: <p>I don't know about English. In spanish we use the term "defensa indirecta" or "protección indirecta", but it does not refer specifically to indirect protection/defence by fork, it could be a threat of any kind that prevents the piece in question to be captured.</p>
  
  <p>For example, after the silly moves 1.e4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3. Bc4 g6 4.Ne5 and the queen is indirectly protected by a mate threat.</p>
  
  <p>After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3, the d4 pawn is indirectly protected by a discovered attack in case it got captured.</p>
  
  <p>And finally, relating back to your specific case: 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 e6 3.Be3 Qa5+ 4.c3 is another case of indirect protection, this time by means of a fork threat in case of 4...Bxc5?</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-04-06T00:28:36.323Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-06-25T17:08:28.777Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2019-06-25T17:08:28.777Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.Body: <p>I agree with asdf regarding the idea that <strong>there isn't a name specifically attached to indirect protection of a piece stemming from a <em>fork</em></strong>.</p>
  <p>However, in general, pieces that are protected by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>any</em> tactic</a>, including forking, are said to be &quot;indirectly defended.&quot;</p>
  <p>As far as a name for the piece being indirectly defended, <strong>one might call it a &quot;bait&quot; piece</strong>, as it baits the opposing player to make a dubious move. In a specific opening line, there is a somewhat famous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;poisoned pawn&quot;</a> - a pawn that looks like it can be taken without fear, but makes things positionally difficult in the long run. Thus, <strong>an indirectly defended piece might also be called a &quot;poisoned&quot; piece.</strong></p>
  <p>Edit: as Cyriac Antony points out, this is also known as an &quot;indirectly defended piece.&quot;</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-06-15T16:19:04.160Z
Answers.Text: "Indirectly defened piece" is often used in chess literature and sound good unlike "poisoned piece".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-06-17T11:58:57.020Z
Answers.Text: The main problem with "poisoned piece" is that it only makes sense when capturing the piece is, as you say, dubious. "Indirectly defended" is more neutral and encompasses situations where the net result would be a trade (e.g. a rook is lost only to be regained by an immediate fork).
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-04-06T01:29:35.733Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-06-16T13:35:18.687Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2021-06-16T13:35:18.687Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brandon_J
Body: <p>Sometimes the reason a piece should not be captured isn’t the recapture, but rather the threat of a fork because the capturing piece would find itself in just the wrong spot. The <a href="https://lichess.org/wcRgyUgW#40" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1926 game between Stepanov and Romanovsky</a> is full of this after 20. … R×f3+.</p>
  
  
  
  <p>Is there a name for the situation where a piece is protected by the threat of a fork?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-04-06T07:47:30.263Z
Comments.Text: Just adding to the answers below. The situation you describe often appears as part of decoy/attraction/deflection tactics. For instance in http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1274410 after 29....Rxc4 the rook is a decoy for the white queen but is indirectly protected via the knight fork on a3.
Comments.UserDisplayName: user1583209
Tags: <terminology><fork>
Title: Is there a name for fork-protected pieces?
ThreadText: # Is there a name for fork-protected pieces?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-04-06)
  
  Sometimes the reason a piece should not be captured isn’t the recapture, but rather the threat of a fork because the capturing piece would find itself in just the wrong spot. The [1926 game between Stepanov and Romanovsky](https://lichess.org/wcRgyUgW#40) is full of this after 20. … R×f3+.
  
  Is there a name for the situation where a piece is protected by the threat of a fork?
  
  **Tags:** terminology, fork
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Just adding to the answers below. The situation you describe often appears as part of decoy/attraction/deflection tactics. For instance in http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1274410 after 29....Rxc4 the rook is a decoy for the white queen but is indirectly protected via the knight fork on a3.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-04-06. Score: 12 | Accepted answer
  
  I agree with asdf regarding the idea that **there isn't a name specifically attached to indirect protection of a piece stemming from a *fork***.
  
  However, in general, pieces that are protected by [*any* tactic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactic), including forking, are said to be "indirectly defended."
  
  As far as a name for the piece being indirectly defended, **one might call it a "bait" piece**, as it baits the opposing player to make a dubious move. In a specific opening line, there is a somewhat famous ["poisoned pawn"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoned_Pawn_Variation) - a pawn that looks like it can be taken without fear, but makes things positionally difficult in the long run. Thus, **an indirectly defended piece might also be called a "poisoned" piece.**
  
  Edit: as username_4 points out, this is also known as an "indirectly defended piece."
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: "Indirectly defened piece" is often used in chess literature and sound good unlike "poisoned piece".  
  > **username_5**: The main problem with "poisoned piece" is that it only makes sense when capturing the piece is, as you say, dubious. "Indirectly defended" is more neutral and encompasses situations where the net result would be a trade (e.g. a rook is lost only to be regained by an immediate fork).  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2019-04-06. Score: 6
  
  I don't know about English. In spanish we use the term "defensa indirecta" or "protección indirecta", but it does not refer specifically to indirect protection/defence by fork, it could be a threat of any kind that prevents the piece in question to be captured.
  
  For example, after the silly moves 1.e4 d6 2.Nf3 Bg4 3. Bc4 g6 4.Ne5 and the queen is indirectly protected by a mate threat.
  
  After 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3, the d4 pawn is indirectly protected by a discovered attack in case it got captured.
  
  And finally, relating back to your specific case: 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 e6 3.Be3 Qa5+ 4.c3 is another case of indirect protection, this time by means of a fork threat in case of 4...Bxc5?
  
  
  ---
  
  