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 ^_^

lol

you should look around, there are bound to be a few topics on the forums you might understand.

@ 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.

amazing how the long posts on this website are always lacking any information content

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.

so how many options do you recommend for white there ?

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

quackology

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.  

quite good.

so we know the type of exchanges the OP was not talking about.

That's the problem... the OP wasn't talking about anything constructive lol

i think he would have had to put it into perfectly constructed english for the uneducated dopes loose on this site.

I do believe it was the OP's general lack of polite behaviour and hostility that turned this thead to mush.  Id like to see a thread on exchange's and thier value provided the prior nonsense can be avoided.  Feel free to include animal photo's and general mayhem but single person attacks are very distracting.  If we can keep in ontopic that would be great if not start a new thread,,imo

Bicarbonatofsoda, you seem to be knowledgeable about the OP and what not.  what types of exchanges was he talking about?

he posted a link earlier, indicating one aspect.

the trolls just kept rattling off BS, thought they found someone they could pretend to be superior to.

According to Imperfect's logic, trades without material advantage are spiteful and suicidal, not worthy of continuing play.  This example was a refutation of that logic.

Since you're quick to invoke "education", "common sense", and "intelligence quotients" to support Imperfect's misguided manifesto, consider the empirical demands of educated folks.  Imperfect speaks in abstractions, allowing for interpretations and guesswork; something you've done on his behalf, and assumed to be factual.  He claims to have said what he meant, yet he managed to say nothing at all.  That's why this thread has been about nothing for so long.