I am no where his equal in evaluating either PTTD, nor ever will be, he's on another level there. I think maybe, Its because it was used loosely, and maybe he came up with how he sees them. Which far be it from me to say otherwise on that. If it worked for him great. We sometimes say things people may take differently as well.
When that wasn't our intention nor meaning at all, sometimes words can have different meanings. sometimes its better if we don't even respond.
People are constantly asking him questions, it wouldn't be hard to say something, and someone misunderstood it, it happens all the time. Anyway Good luck.Garry is entitled to his opinion by the way. I don't totally disagree with him either. He knows alot more about chess than I do. Jezz now you got me sweating, what if he reads this. Lol, Sorry Garry.
Well you are entitled to disagree with him. I don't equate pawns to pieces like he does because I cannot execute his ideas before opponents equalize and or realize their material advantage. My point was only that he is really calling the pawns pieces in some situations. It is not a semantic or terminology issue. He thinks of them as pieces and actually plays that way.