Answers.Body: <p>Francesco di Castellvi vs Narciso Vinyoles</p>
  
  <pre><code>[Event "?"]
  [Site "?"]
  [Date "1475"]
  [Round "?"]
  [White "Don Francí de Castellví(mars aka love)"]
  [Black "Narcís Vinyoles(venus aka glory)"]
  [Result "white"]
  [FEN "?"]
  [Time "?"]
  [TimeControl "?"]
  
  
  1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bf3 7. Qf3 e6 8. Qb7 Nbd7 9. Nb5 Rc8 10. Na7 Nb6 11. Nc8 Nc8 12. d4 Nd6 13. Bb5 Nb5 14. Qb5 Nd7 15. d5 exd5 16. Be3 Bd6 17. Rd1 Qf6 18. Rd5 Qg6 19. Bf4 Bf4 20. Qd7 Kf8 21. Qd8#
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>This is derived from the poem <a href="http://www.scachsdamor.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">which you can read here</a>. I found this while watching <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2Tw4ilH7o" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this youtube channel</a>. </p>
  
  <p>At move 19 here I can see the three piece attack you were talking about. Here the bishop gets sacrificed for getting a checkmate. This the oldest usage of it that you'll find where the rules followed are the same as today.</p>
  
  <p>Closest thing i could find was this sentence: </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p><a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006536" rel="nofollow noreferrer"> "3 Piece Rule Compiled by notyetagm  --*-- You need three pieces to
    checkmate the enemy king, one to sacrifice and two to deliver mate. Of
    course more is better. :-)"</a></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p><strong>Rule:</strong> one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity. It should be absolute(a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things)</p>
  
  <p>But we know that it is possible to Checkmate your opponent using less than 3 pieces.
  Example: <br>For checkmate using single piece => Back rank checkmate or a smothered checkmate<br>
  For checkmate with 2 piece there is => classic queen rook checkmate or Diagonal checkmate,<a href="https://thechessworld.com/articles/training-techniques/13-checkmates-you-must-know/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">etc</a></p>
  
  <p>Hence, it is not applicable everywhere and thus it isn't a rule (you shouldn't considered it either). <br>
  <em>"if you have three pieces or more in the attack you can sacrifice without thinking!"</em> But this is a line that works a lot of time. So the question arises what is this? It's just a <strong>strategy</strong> or if you wanna be specific its a attack strategy or even a checkmate strategy in cases. </p>
  
  <p>You can even generalize this as "trade off when you have more number of attacking pieces that defending pieces". <strong>It actually establishes the basics</strong> of our chess today, that might not be fruitful in all the cases. <strong>As there is one and only one goal in chess , that is to defeat your opponent and obtain a victory.</strong>
  So, Apply it all you want but make sure to win. Or at least its application should be fruitful to you and not your opponent.</p>
  
  <p>As to my final answer to you, it isn't a rule it's a strategy and like other strategy's there is a very strong likely hood that someone played it before it got recognized by some name. As to oldest usage its  Mars vs Venus,1475 if you'll consider this. So, regarding who and when, it's something i feel that has evolved with time along with the modern chess.</p>
  
  <p>Thank you!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-05-04T07:10:16.653Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for the answer and the nice resources. Point well taken on the difference between a rule and a strategy!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Kortchnoi
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-05-04T11:54:56.717Z
Answers.Text: I am glad you liked it. And thank you for the edit I didn't sleep the night before the morning i wrote the answer XD. I am sorry if I came out as too strong somewhere. Do accept the answer if you feel its worthy. <3
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ashish Kumar
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-05-04T03:52:44.010Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-05-04T07:02:47.683Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-05-04T07:02:47.683Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ashish Kumar
Body: <p>As a kid, my coach, an International Master, was repeating "if you have three pieces or more in the attack you can sacrifice without thinking!" </p>
  
  <p>However, don't take this rule too literally!</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>Chess is a <strong>concrete game</strong> and we should not follow a rule "without thinking". However, I believe that chess is guided by some rules and general principles.</li>
  <li>We can redefine the rule of "Three Pieces in the Attack" as <strong>"Play more aggressively in the attack"</strong> in a context where the <strong>number of pieces attacking exceeds the number of pieces defending</strong>.</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>My question is: by searching on the Internet, I could see this rule from time to time but I could not find its origin. Who devised this rule? How old is it?</p>
  
  <p>I found a cute example <a href="https://chess-teacher.com/4-tips-for-a-successful-attack/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> to illustrate this rule. White plays and checkmates a strong GM!</p>
  
  <pre><code>[title "Juarez Flores, C - Lputian, S, Manilla 1990"]
  [fen "r6r/p4ppp/2p1b3/4R3/1kpR1N2/6P1/P1P2P1P/2K5 w - - 0 1"]
  
  1.
  </code></pre>
  
  <p>I cover the solution for those who want to search: </p>
  
  <blockquote class="spoiler">
    <p>  1. a3! Kxa3 (1...Kc3 2. Ne2#) (1...Ka4 2.Nxe6 fxe6 3.Rxc4+ Kxa3 4.Ra5#) 2.Nxe6 Kb4 (2...fxe6 3.Rxc4 c5 4.Re3 Ka2 5. Ra4#) 3.Rc5 fxe6 4.Rdxc4 Ka3 5.Ra5#</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>The <strong>Greek Gift</strong> is another illustration of this rule because the <code>Bd3</code>, the <code>Nf3</code> and the <code>Qd1</code> coordinate to attack (the <code>Bc1</code> and the <code>Rh1</code> can also join the party)</p>
  
  <pre><code>[title "Greco 1792"]
  [fen "r1bq1rk1/ppppbppp/2n1p3/3nP3/3P3P/3B1N2/PPP2PP1/RNBQK2R w KQ - 1 1"]
  
  1. Bxh7!  Kxh7 2.Ng5 Kg8 3.Qh5 Bxg5 4.hxg5 f5 5.g6+-
  </code></pre>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-28T21:34:53.293Z
Comments.Text: If someone knows how to cover a FEN diagram, the solution will be more pleasant to read.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kortchnoi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T07:33:52.917Z
Comments.Text: Doesn't sound like a good rule to follow consistently. A better rule would be comparing the number of pieces you have attacking to the number your opponent has defending.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T07:39:31.137Z
Comments.Text: @InertialIgnorance that's a very good point! Implicitly, that's what I have in mind. Shall I update my answer to make it clearer?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kortchnoi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T08:04:49.870Z
Comments.Text: The rule makes no sense at all. Chess is about concrete calculation, not abstract theoretical rules. Indeed, you can make several different small tweeks in the position that would make the combination fail
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T08:24:18.887Z
Comments.Text: Sure @David. I know that chess is a concrete game but it's a guided by rules and general principles. You do no start a game with `1.Nh3` while there is no concrete refutation of it but you follow a general rule that centralization matters.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kortchnoi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T10:32:02.770Z
Comments.Text: @Kortchnoi I think a simplified rule can help beginners starting out, in which case saying to only count your pieces would be simpler (if not an objectively better rule overall). But in the case of sacrificing without thinking, I feel that could do more harm than good (for beginners and others alike). If it said to play more aggressively in the attack, that would be fine.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T10:40:10.640Z
Comments.Text: @InertialIgnorance thanks again. That makes sense I will update my question. However, I am not sure that counting the pieces is "objectively a better rule" because defining what is an attacking or a defending piece can be tricky. For example, in the Greek Gift, the Q is still in d1 and the Knight in f3 is not yet participating.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Kortchnoi
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-29T17:30:33.777Z
Comments.Text: Based on my readings (im not a strong player) playing chess with only an eye towards attacking and defending is not what most gms do—they’re looking at positional chess, which takes a more holistic view of pieces and squares. It’s important tactically to attack and defend, but modern chess appears to have more than just tactics in it
Comments.UserDisplayName: D. Ben Knoble
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-05-04T22:34:37.417Z
Comments.Text: @Korchnoi Even then, playing 1.Nh3 would be a minor mistake compared to blundering a piece after a sacrifice based on principle. Many openings to indeed develop their knights using a lateral square when concrete factors favour it. It just happens that after 1.Nh3, 1...d5 threatens to demolish White's pawn structure
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <strategy><history><greek-gift>
Title: Three Pieces in the Attack
ThreadText: # Three Pieces in the Attack
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-28)
  
  As a kid, my coach, an International Master, was repeating "if you have three pieces or more in the attack you can sacrifice without thinking!"
  
  However, don't take this rule too literally!
  
  1. Chess is a **concrete game** and we should not follow a rule "without thinking". However, I believe that chess is guided by some rules and general principles.
  2. We can redefine the rule of "Three Pieces in the Attack" as **"Play more aggressively in the attack"** in a context where the **number of pieces attacking exceeds the number of pieces defending**.
  
  My question is: by searching on the Internet, I could see this rule from time to time but I could not find its origin. Who devised this rule? How old is it?
  
  I found a cute example [here](https://chess-teacher.com/4-tips-for-a-successful-attack/) to illustrate this rule. White plays and checkmates a strong GM!
  
  ```
  [title "Juarez Flores, C - Lputian, S, Manilla 1990"]
  [fen "r6r/p4ppp/2p1b3/4R3/1kpR1N2/6P1/P1P2P1P/2K5 w - - 0 1"]
  
  1.
  
  ```
  
  I cover the solution for those who want to search:
  
  > 1. a3! Kxa3 (1...Kc3 2. Ne2#) (1...Ka4 2.Nxe6 fxe6 3.Rxc4+ Kxa3 4.Ra5#) 2.Nxe6 Kb4 (2...fxe6 3.Rxc4 c5 4.Re3 Ka2 5. Ra4#) 3.Rc5 fxe6 4.Rdxc4 Ka3 5.Ra5#
  
  ---
  
  The **Greek Gift** is another illustration of this rule because the `Bd3`, the `Nf3` and the `Qd1` coordinate to attack (the `Bc1` and the `Rh1` can also join the party)
  
  ```
  [title "Greco 1792"]
  [fen "r1bq1rk1/ppppbppp/2n1p3/3nP3/3P3P/3B1N2/PPP2PP1/RNBQK2R w KQ - 1 1"]
  
  1. Bxh7!  Kxh7 2.Ng5 Kg8 3.Qh5 Bxg5 4.hxg5 f5 5.g6+-
  
  ```
  
  **Tags:** strategy, history, greek-gift
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: If someone knows how to cover a FEN diagram, the solution will be more pleasant to read.  
  > **username_1**: Doesn't sound like a good rule to follow consistently. A better rule would be comparing the number of pieces you have attacking to the number your opponent has defending.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 that's a very good point! Implicitly, that's what I have in mind. Shall I update my answer to make it clearer?  
  > **username_2**: The rule makes no sense at all. Chess is about concrete calculation, not abstract theoretical rules. Indeed, you can make several different small tweeks in the position that would make the combination fail  
  > **username_0**: Sure @username_2. I know that chess is a concrete game but it's a guided by rules and general principles. You do no start a game with `1.Nh3` while there is no concrete refutation of it but you follow a general rule that centralization matters.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 I think a simplified rule can help beginners starting out, in which case saying to only count your pieces would be simpler (if not an objectively better rule overall). But in the case of sacrificing without thinking, I feel that could do more harm than good (for beginners and others alike). If it said to play more aggressively in the attack, that would be fine.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1 thanks again. That makes sense I will update my question. However, I am not sure that counting the pieces is "objectively a better rule" because defining what is an attacking or a defending piece can be tricky. For example, in the Greek Gift, the Q is still in d1 and the Knight in f3 is not yet participating.  
  > **username_3**: Based on my readings (im not a strong player) playing chess with only an eye towards attacking and defending is not what most gms do—they’re looking at positional chess, which takes a more holistic view of pieces and squares. It’s important tactically to attack and defend, but modern chess appears to have more than just tactics in it  
  > **username_2**: @Korchnoi Even then, playing 1.Nh3 would be a minor mistake compared to blundering a piece after a sacrifice based on principle. Many openings to indeed develop their knights using a lateral square when concrete factors favour it. It just happens that after 1.Nh3, 1...d5 threatens to demolish White's pawn structure  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2020-05-04. Score: 3 | Accepted answer
  
  Francesco di Castellvi vs Narciso Vinyoles
  
  ```
  [Event "?"]
  [Site "?"]
  [Date "1475"]
  [Round "?"]
  [White "Don Francí de Castellví(mars aka love)"]
  [Black "Narcís Vinyoles(venus aka glory)"]
  [Result "white"]
  [FEN "?"]
  [Time "?"]
  [TimeControl "?"]
  
  1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bf3 7. Qf3 e6 8. Qb7 Nbd7 9. Nb5 Rc8 10. Na7 Nb6 11. Nc8 Nc8 12. d4 Nd6 13. Bb5 Nb5 14. Qb5 Nd7 15. d5 exd5 16. Be3 Bd6 17. Rd1 Qf6 18. Rd5 Qg6 19. Bf4 Bf4 20. Qd7 Kf8 21. Qd8#
  
  ```
  
  This is derived from the poem [which you can read here](http://www.scachsdamor.org/). I found this while watching [this youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2Tw4ilH7o).
  
  At move 19 here I can see the three piece attack you were talking about. Here the bishop gets sacrificed for getting a checkmate. This the oldest usage of it that you'll find where the rules followed are the same as today.
  
  Closest thing i could find was this sentence:
  
  > ["3 Piece Rule Compiled by notyetagm --\*-- You need three pieces to
  > checkmate the enemy king, one to sacrifice and two to deliver mate. Of
  > course more is better. :-)"](https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chesscollection?cid=1006536)
  
  **Rule:** one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity. It should be absolute(a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things)
  
  But we know that it is possible to Checkmate your opponent using less than 3 pieces.
  Example:   
  For checkmate using single piece => Back rank checkmate or a smothered checkmate  
  For checkmate with 2 piece there is => classic queen rook checkmate or Diagonal checkmate,[etc](https://thechessworld.com/articles/training-techniques/13-checkmates-you-must-know/)
  
  Hence, it is not applicable everywhere and thus it isn't a rule (you shouldn't considered it either).   
  *"if you have three pieces or more in the attack you can sacrifice without thinking!"* But this is a line that works a lot of time. So the question arises what is this? It's just a **strategy** or if you wanna be specific its a attack strategy or even a checkmate strategy in cases.
  
  You can even generalize this as "trade off when you have more number of attacking pieces that defending pieces". **It actually establishes the basics** of our chess today, that might not be fruitful in all the cases. **As there is one and only one goal in chess , that is to defeat your opponent and obtain a victory.**
  So, Apply it all you want but make sure to win. Or at least its application should be fruitful to you and not your opponent.
  
  As to my final answer to you, it isn't a rule it's a strategy and like other strategy's there is a very strong likely hood that someone played it before it got recognized by some name. As to oldest usage its Mars vs Venus,1475 if you'll consider this. So, regarding who and when, it's something i feel that has evolved with time along with the modern chess.
  
  Thank you!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for the answer and the nice resources. Point well taken on the difference between a rule and a strategy!  
  > **username_4**: I am glad you liked it. And thank you for the edit I didn't sleep the night before the morning i wrote the answer XD. I am sorry if I came out as too strong somewhere. Do accept the answer if you feel its worthy. <3  
  
  ---
  
  