In chess lingo, should pieces be preceded with the "the" article? [closed]

If you hear this form commonly among chess experts, I'd suggest two possibilities (aside from sloppiness or error):

1. It is being used as a short hand staccato jargon: for example, in the movie Top Gun the protagonist is told over radio: "Maverick, do not engage bandit", rather than "the bandit".

2. "Pawn" is being used as the category of that piece rather than a specific piece. "Take the town with artillery" as opposed to "the artillery". In fact I did this in the previous point -- "told over radio" not "told over the radio."

I understand that "Top Gun" is not the Oxford English Dictionary, however, I think native speakers will recognize the structure that I am referring to.

I'm not a chess player myself, but these two options might explain what you hear.

I've noticed many native English speakers that are professional chess players saying things like: "In this situation I can capture with pawn."

I have found no examples of this on the internet. I would avoid it.

In this context, the idiomatic use would be countable and thus would need a determiner/quantifier or be in the plural.

"In this situation I can capture with a/the pawn." "In this situation I can capture with pawns."

The only context in which pawn/bishop/knight, etc appears to be uncountable would be with "by [means of]" that indicates the instrumental, e.g.

"As the pawns surround the king, checking can only be done by knight."

in which "knight" would be the class name of those pieces, but even so, this is not very idiomatic.

I would expect to hear "In this situation I can capture the piece with a/the pawn/[the] pawns."