We all know about chess debates.  some people feel strongly about the advantages about a certain position, while others feel strongly about its disadvantages.  someone post a position that is unclear, meaning its hard to say which side is definitely winning.  By the way, it should be a position actually reached between two humans.  Once that is done, we will post our opinions of what is actually going on in the position.  that way, we all see different points of views, and might spark up an idea, an old forgotten plan, or a totally way of seeing the chess board.  at least that is the ideal.  only rule is no computer assistance.

My idea is right.  Yours is wrong.  No debate exists.

Im with pawnwallis my ideas correct so how can we argue.

a lot of times we are narrowed to our own point of views.  our mind needs diversity of thought.  this was especially apparent with a yahoo player i played yesterday against a 1870     5 min each side.  the first game he chose a strange way of playing the Dragon.  second game, the first 25 games were exactly the same!!! meaning we both could not come up with a different plan or idea, because we were so sure about the correctness of our plans.  but this can be hurtful, it would be great to be able to train the mind to be flexible enough to choose from a range of correct plans.