Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

relationships

Submitted by Catherine-J on Wed, 01/28/2009 at 7:07am.

chess, when ranked in numerative values in relation to pieces, construes a misnomer in cohesion to the actual nature of the game.

I am american.  we are taught game theory and rivalry through mostly public and private educational instutions and bureaucratic hierarchies in addition to capitalist business models in conjunction with marketing and basic psychology.

it is simply one side of chess.  the power of the individual.  relationships, in binary, triplicate, quadrupled and so forth, reveal the motions behind the numbers.  the price of a piece is but the crest of a wave over deep ocean currents.

One must always pay attention to how pieces compliment each other from various positions on the board.  More importantly, one must study the nature of the movement of a couplet from one side of the board to the other.

a knight and a bishop

a king and a pawn

are two examples of a myriad that can compliment and defend each other as they move from space to space as a squadron bent on victory.

by victory i mean:  for the sake of the entire army; the defeat of the rival king

 

when pieces move together like the legs of an insect, arachnid, centipede and so forth ( diamonds, trapezoids, rectangles, squares, and all the other shapes of the 8x8 grid. ) they can achieve great things.

» posted in Other
 

Comments:

by estevon - 2 years ago
Maine United States
Member Since: Oct 2008
Member Points: 1497

Ah,The Chess Pieces have comes to Life as you had said before.Much much more and fully alive moving forward going sensing victory as each move progresses.I see indeed,I do fully agree with you indeed.

by Rael - 3 years ago
Calgary Canada
Member Since: Sep 2007
Member Points: 5084

So having interesting thoughts is pretentious now, Bungler? Catherine's insight into piece movement as being similar to different shapes when different pieces are in conjunction is genuinely deep.

I'd looove to see what you think passes for intellectual.

/at least your name is apt.

by Catherine-J - 3 years ago
New York City United States
Member Since: Aug 2008
Member Points: 307

bungler.  i read your reply and all i see is that you're assuming i'm doing one of two things.  i'm not sure whether to commend you on your lack of imagination or you inability to decide.  i think that i shall do neither.

 

streetfighter, thanks for the advice, i don't always proofread.  you're absolutely right, coherence maybe?

by Bungler - 3 years ago
London England
Member Since: Jun 2008
Member Points: 12

It's been a long time since I've read such pretentious garbage. I  can only assume that either Catherine-J is taking the mick out of us genuine chess.com members or she is the classic example of the flyweight intellect with the heavyweight vocabulary.

by CM streetfighter - 3 years ago
Edinburgh Scotland
Member Since: Jul 2008
Member Points: 1091

Quite true (but don't use the word 'cohesion' in that context, it doesn't make sense Tongue out).

Anyway, think I'll check out your other writings - keep up the good work Smile

streetfighter

 

Add your comment:

Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.