15124 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
what age range would they be ?
6 and older?
I bet my 7 yo nephew can beat him in chess...lolololol....I don't even know why i'm following this thread.......muuust...ressist...reea..ddiing....!
Suicidal-opponents like you call them aren't cowards. In most cases when i do a suicide trade like rook for rook, it is always because i'm sure that it gives me an advantage. Most people who do a suicide trade do it for a reason and not because they have no better move to do. It is a part of the set-up. Meaning it makes the defense and the counter-attack stronger. Maybe you should focus less on thinking people are cowards because of a suicidal move, and rather look for the reason why they make such moves.
Your theory that trading pieces off the board is flawed. There's countless situations where trading pieces relieves pressure or as stated above gives tempos or gets "bad" pieces off the board. You play chess for pure fun, which isnt a bad thing by any means. But those of us who take it more seroously put alot of theory study in where i'm guessing you do not. Explaining your flawed theory
Does it really take 30+ pages for the OP to wrap his brain around the concept of exchange?
I don't think 30 will be sufficient. I'm afraid the OP will never break 900.
Exchanging pieces during games can be for many reasons, including to offset a piece's dominance, get rid of a defender, etc. "Suicidal Chess" as I understand it is to trade off all pieces and play out the endgame. I do this sometimes when I am unable to find a way to win quickly.
However, don't blatantly accuse players of trading pieces because we all have our own reasons, and resigning when someone trades is probably the worst thing to do.
The gift that keeps on giving... Bicarbonatofsoda, if you want to continue backing him up, consider his last post:
"More games, more examples" - there can't be more if there hasn't been one. The only thing he has to say for it is, "heh". What people asked for was a game of his own, where he objectively discusses moves that supports his ideas. Only thing I can say to "heh", is meh!
Then he continues, "...games were posted, links were given, explanations were said. The last one I did was an edit of a vid into the opening post." - Of course I had to translate for that sentence to make sense, but let's look into this statement for what it is. Games were posted sure, but no moves were pointed out to have a meaningful discussion. It was just a lazy attempt at hoping somebody points out the moves for him, so he can come in again and say, "yeah, that's what I meant!", then add an "edit" line like he did with that video someone else referenced. In grade school that's called "getting by", and unfortunately in the real world, you'll get called out for it.
Try and tell me this is an improper assessment, and I'll back off.
I finally realized what IM perfect wants. He wants to play ganjam style, all rastafarian, with pece and love mon. Jah. No exchanging pieces. No al qaeda tactics. No spiteful suicide tricks. Just piece and harmony, from Ethiopia to the Carribbean. "I play a game, but I didn't take no pece, oh no. Oh! Yeah! All around the chess.com, They're tryin' to track me down; They say they want to bring me in gulty, For the killieng of a pece, GM John Brown always hatted me, For what, I don't know: Every time I plant a pawn, He said kill it before it grow - He said kill them before they grow. Freedim came my way one day, And I started out of town, yeah! All of a sudden I saw GM John Brown, Aiming to mate me down, So I resigned, I resigned him down and I say: If I am lost it is ok.I - I - I - I play the GM. Lord, I didn't take the pece. Yeah! I - I (play the GM) - But I didn't take no pece, yeah! No, yeah!"
Keep smoking the madamada, pece on brother IM Perfect!
uh, you mean gangnam style? XP
Point out where he posted a game with any annotations before making the assumption this is some lynch mob. Also, read his original post and quote for me, anything at all that suggests you are correct.
Lastly, you're the one posting that the OP is a "funny guy", and that everyone here's a "whackjob" except you two lovebirds.
Lol :D I can not resist reading this forum.
Ahahaha that video just made my day
Imperfect_Luck has certain preferences and a level of understanding about chess that both guides and allows him to speak on a certain level, and few here respect his thoughts and abilities.
People dissatisfied with the flow of the forum should create their own forum for discussing things with others of a similar mindset and understanding.
"Piece" and harmony, I love that pun ^_^
@ Imperfect_Luck..... Firstly, let me state that this post is meant to be constructive and an attempt to discuss your original post and in no way meant to be picky, but I do however have to address an issue first.I feel the need to iron out the issue concerning your choice of meaning for the words "Trade" and "Sacrifice". Whilst it's true you did state your meanings of them clearly in your first post, that is simply not going to work. These two words have been part of the lingo of chess for aeons, "trade" meaning "the approximately equal exchange of material" and "Sacrifice" meaning "the willing loss of material in order to gain an advantage in another element" and you can't simply change them for your needs. If you are writing in a chess forum about chess, you need to use the language of chess. Anything else will cause confusion.So, with regards to trades, many people have posted the fact that there are a million and one reasons to exchange pieces, some obvious and some very subtle. If you cannot understand the reason, that does not mean that it is not there. There are many, many exchanges in master games that I cannot fathom. That said, In the quicker time limits, there can be a tendency or players to make exchanges as default. The solution is simple... Avoid short time control games. Also, begginers will tend to exchange by default. again the solution is simple... If your strategy is superior to their's, you grade will climb and soon you will no longer be playing beginners.You say you play chess for fun, not to win, but that baffles me. The idea of the game is to win. I play chess because I have fun playing it, but I must at all times be attempting to win, or what is my purpose? Also, I must derive that fun from all the elememts of the game and understand that within the rules of the game, there are many varied styles of play my opponents may use, and in fact, my fun comes primarily from the challenge of finding ways to succesfully oppose these varied stratagies.If you simply do not have fun with the game, then maybe try another. May I reccomend "Xiangqi", aka "Chinese chess"? Very similar rules, but a bigger board and a few differences that make it a much more attacking game with far fewer exchanges in general.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiangqi
Hope this helps.
would you trade a good kidney for bad one. Would give a healthy heart to sickly dying old man or a you kid with a whole life to live. Such a worthy topic but irrevockably damaged. Go now, softly and with grace, dignity and poise.
Mr. Perfect, in this position, do you think that Bxe7 would be coward? which move would you prefer? If white plays Bxe7 would you resign as black?
Bxe7 is incredibly spiteful. Why would Black want to play against someone who does such things? White might as well join al-Qaeda.
I would be forced to resign as White, as my concious would not allow me to commit such a heinous, egregious act of degredation of the black bishop. It would be much better to fight a war of attrition where the constant threat of blacks holy warriors erode white's ability further develop.
Now hiring. Preferable buddhist or pacifist. Qualifications: Isolated loner type living with parents, or grandparents. Little future, no income and hatred of pointless societal threads. Job Requirments; self immulate on this thread burning all prior post and any further leafs yet to be written upon
Let's make this thread useful, starting with socialista's diagram. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on the position as well. Here are my thoughts (feel free to call me out on inaccuracies):
In the position socialista has presented us, there's the immediate threat of being taken and losing in the exchange, if White were to ignore the threat on his dark square bishop. The options here are either trade, move, or support the piece. In random order:
1) Moving the bishop: There's only 1 square the bishop can move to (g3). This move immediately gives Black ideas of playing Nxg3 to create doubled pawns on White's kingside. It's not all gravy for Black, however. Creating doubled pawns simultaneously opens up a file for White's rook (white has option of recapturing with f or h-pawn, depending on whether White castles short or not), and also trades away one of Black's nicely developed pieces. Meanwhile, Black's e-knight is also under threat, because if White trades knights (Nxe4) it creates doubled pawns for Black, particularly, an isolated one on e4. There's a good chance this line would weigh on Black's decision to trade this knight proactively, should White move the bishop to g3, but it's still not clear cut. Bg3 is a possibility for White.
2) Trading the bishop: White could make the determination that trading the bishop would be better use of time, since this forces Qxe7, which in turn gives White the opportunity to play Nxe4, leading to dxe4 (creating isolated e4 pawn), and Nd2, intending Qc2 plus fianchettoing the light square bishop, O-O, and maybe f3. The game would logically focus on this isolated e4 pawn. Bxe7 is also a possibility for White.
3) Supporting the bishop: There's only one way to support the bishop, and that's playing pawn to g3. The problem with this move is that Black would easily accept the bishop exchange, since Bxh4, gxh4 destroys White's kingside structure, which deters castling short. Even if this creates an open g-file, Black should have no problem defending it. g3 is a very unlikely possibility for White.
Even if my assessment of the position were inaccurate, as you can see, the decision to trade bishops or not has nothing to do with being "spiteful", or "suicidal" with pieces.
by RonaldJosephCote a few minutes ago
by YamiNoGame64 2 minutes ago
Enforcing Tournament Conditions
by Zigwurst 3 minutes ago
How to get from 1100-1800 quick?
by Chesserman63 3 minutes ago
7/10/2014 - All About Piece Positioning
by WindowsEnthusiast 4 minutes ago
by mattyf9 9 minutes ago
by I_Am_Second 14 minutes ago
by Bryce_Carmony 16 minutes ago
ZMF-II clock accuracy
by MikeH76 18 minutes ago
7/6/2014 - Anand - Lputian, Moscow 2004, Analysis
by rishavnandi6 24 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!