Suicidal opponents

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.  

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

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?

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.

is this thread referring to opponents who commit suicide while a game is in progress, thus leaving you to while away the minutes until their time expires? 

By the way, need I remind you that this "link" you're speaking of was referenced by someone else, and he just tacked it on after the fact.  This is not about bad grammar or spelling, but absence of his own critical ideas worth discussing.  Rather than make a real conversation, he brushes it off by saying, "Yeah, that video is what I meant."

If you must invoke educational standards (speaking of superiority complexes) don't be so naive.  You mean well, but trust me on this one... you're wrong about Imperfect_Luck.  Unlike you, I'll quote him... he himself said he was talking about "bishop for a bishop."  Read again his original post.  All this other stuff you're implying that he said was something from your imagination.

Since this is a well known position, I just want to let you know that after the exchange of bishops, if white exchange knights on e4 is going to be beneficial to black, those doubled pawns doesn´t matter, since black is going to play e5, getting a good game. Instead of that white would exchange pawns on d5 and then wait for black to exchange knights on c3.

Thanks for looking at my example.

This could be another example. Here is just a question of life or death. (Since our main topic was about suicides, I think it was ok to use that phrase).

@socialista: don't sweat it.  I actually prefer that people correct me when I'm wrong.  Going with your idea, if Black plays e5, then Nxe4 just wins a pawn (because of Nd2).  How is that beneficial for Black?

Trade pieces if it help! If all your opponents pawn are locked on black squares, and all your pawns are locked on white squares, trade white-squared bishops, and you have an easy win.

32 pieces on a board is much. Therefor, you trade the pieces so you got space for the reserves. Play the KID. I once saw a game where first exchange was on move 22.

This is your answer verybadbishop :)

@socialista: 

Yeah, that is a pretty messy continuation for White.  Hmm, I guess what White can do in response to 10.e5 is 11.d5, intending Qc2, g3, Bg2, O-O, f3?.  The idea is keep piling pressure on the isolated e4 pawn in a sensible way.  

Black will do f5, and the e4 pawn will be ok :)

yes but the king becomes weak

After Black's f5, White's f3 (in tandem with the other developments; Qc2, g3, Bg2, O-O should the game allow), he will have ideas of setting up a rook battery along the f-file, and will welcome a pawn exchange on f3.  If the battery were allowed, White might be so inclined to take the initiative by playing fxe4, taking advantage of prior developments if Black were to play a waiting game.  I think it would've been a good game for both sides.  The beauty of chess is many times things don't go as expected.  Black doesn't have to bow to White's intentions and it's a two way street.

Anyway, I think just openly discussing these ideas should be enough to reject Imperfect's oversimplification regarding opponent's motives in trading pieces and pawns.  It's not as simple as "a spiteful trade... material tit-for-tat, knight for knight, bishop for bishop".  Without an example of his own, we have nothing but speculation as to what he truly means.

I take it you lost those games, and now it's not fun anymore?