A Puzzle: Overwhelmed

As far as I understand it, there are 8 pieces and 8 pawns on each side. Which makes 16 men.

Each piece eg the Queen, has its own pawn eg the Queen's pawn.

(At the start of the game).

We could perhaps make peace if we considered every piece on the chessboard a piece.  In that case a pawn like the rook or any other is a piece.

Pawns have been treated as being so insignificant over the years, that it is about time they are given some kind of recognition.  Aren't we all as chessplayers happy when we promote a pawn to become a queen or whatever.  Is this a case where a non-piece becomes  a piece?

On another note however these type of discussions are always very interesting. If we call the sixteen thingies chessmen and refer to all but the pawns as pieces, then what do we call the pawns?  Pawns I suppose!

By the way, is the king a piece as well?  If it is, is it a minor piece or a major piece.  

Have a peaceful discussion please. 

If a piece has to stop when it hits antother piece, and pawns aren't pieces, then white can captue black's Queen on move 1 because no pieces get in his way.

Good answer!

If Pawns are not peices what are they? check this out :

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

http://chess.about.com/cs/reference/g/bldefpaw.htm

http://www.uschess.org/beginners/glossary.php

what are your sources pls... tell us  

the rook holds as many squares even in the center or in the flank.

what a silly argument.

I suppose this is why pawns are promoted into pieces :)

Since you asked, in my opinion, "piece" doesn't include pawns. I did a quick survey of my library and Dvoretsky, Flear, Pandolfini, Pachman, and Silman agree. However, Minev and the FIDE rules do include them. I think it's important to know the general convention... but I agree there's some minor ambiguity.

Credit is due to anyone who realized on their own that a rook is different than a bishop, knight, queen, or king with respect to centralization.

I can't believe there is actually an argument here on whether pawns are pieces.  It is made clear by Reb several times that people often use the word "piece" and it specifically does not include pawns. On the other hand, it has been made clear by the FIDE rules, that the word piece sometimes does include pawns. Why does everyone insist that it must be one way or the other? Sometimes the word "piece" includes pawns and sometimes it does not -- I know that I use it both ways!

So the question is, when the author of this 'puzzle' uses the word piece, does he intend to include the pawn or not? My impression is that the position is a composition, if the author didn't want the pawn to be involved in the question he could just leave it off the board. For that reason, I took the use of the word piece to include the pawn in this case.

I believe that the people on the side of pawns not being pieces won.