First, the black Queen is pinned to her King. If she moves, he dies. So she must stay in place or the player find some other way to eliminate the threat.
The pin isn't immediate though... because the white Rook is in the way. But, if that Rook moves, it's on!
So 1. Rxa6!
The King is in check, and the only piece within reach to capture it is the Black Queen...but she's pinned! So black only has the single "forced move" of 1..Kb8.
But, the party isn't over yet.
The Black Queen is no longer pinned by the White Queen, but now the white Bishop pins the pawn to the King.
How can white take advantage of that?
2. Rb6!
Now the Rook pins the Queen to the King!
Black will lose the Queen after 2..Qxb6 and 3. axb6
Mea culpa here, when I created the position I made the mistake of leaving room for black to throw in some "spite checks" to delay white's win.
I hope you enjoyed this little chess thread. I try not to only talk messy stuff on here.
If you want to build your chess skills, I highly recommend lichess.org/practice.
Lichess is 100% free and practice exercises are great. #chesspunks
Don't worry about solving every puzzle. A lot of the ones I encountered were really hard to see.
I'd also advise pairing your practice with googling the tactic when you struggle with it.
Understanding what a "fork" is in chess makes it easier to find them.
I've also been explaining to my 10 year old that one of the most powerful tools to make tactics work is understanding the chess concept of "forced moves", where you can guarantee your opponent has to react a certain way. It almost promises you multiple moves for yourself.
I am uncomfortable being told what is "free" "black thought" by an account that is only 3/5ths black.
There's a long and ugly history of white folks telling black folks what are "free" and "unfree" thoughts for them to have.
I grant no credibility to this attempt at blackfishing. These men have their own voices, yet they pretend to a "black" one as @FreeBlckThought instead.
Accounts pretending to be "black" is all meant to exploit white progressive sensitivities around pushing back against the opinions of minorities around issues of race.
Progressives should cut it out, or people will continue to exploit it. Speak for your values above all.
The best approach I can think of is to grant agency.
I think people say that they think, and audiences gather around them when the thoughts align with their own. Those holding the thoughts should by default be treated as sincere.
The thing that bothers me the most is a weird argument from authority fallacy that I've called out several times.
I'll see "it's not bigoted because this other X agrees with me", or "how dare you argue with an X about topic Y".
I'm speaking to myself here as well, but let's address the points made by these people, including when we think them ridiculous, rather than focusing on which demographic may agree with them.
Minorities say illogical things too, just like everyone else.
There seems to be some confusion. People are telling me that the countries themselves weren't making profit from slavery, just the powerful individuals.
1) no, that's what I'm saying is illogical and 2) wow do I have some bad news for you about how capitalist societies work
Wow, this is the most insightful tweet right here. cc: @nhannahjones
I agree with the idea that it's material conditions that matters most when talking about fighting racism. Facts on the ground are much more important than symbolic or performative gestures.
But perhaps differently, I do think there's value in engaging in the culture war *towards* the explicit goal of helping to address the material conditions of those impacted by racism past and present.