Sigh....What is this?

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.

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. 

The only way a pawn becomes a piece is by promotion. Garry certainly messed up.

We can't call a pawn a piece, no matter what.

People play a checkmate-by-pawns game. If a pawn is called a piece, this can never happen. A pawn should remain a pawn unless promoted to a piece.

A (rather newbie) friend of mine calls all pawns and pieces "players". If I'm up a bishop and 2 pawns I'm up 3 players. I don't have the heart to correct him.

If the games were live, submit a ticket. If they were online, change your password.

And to the op... I suspect a practical joke by someone you live with.

Its funny when i started chess all strong players joked how their gf always Counted the pieces.

Now every GM tells you:count the the pieces

So if the King is a piece, then is it accurate to say you're down a piece after you've been checkmated?  Or would you say you're down a piece if you lost your queen for nothing?  Or even a rook?  Maybe, with a rook.

But "up a piece" and "down a piece" are phrases usually reserved for bishops and knights. In fact, I think if these two pieces didn't have roughly equal value, then we would be using the term "piece" differently, if we used it at all. 

In any case, it's silly to argue which way of using the term is right or wrong.  But I've always thought that the main function of the idea that pawns are not pieces was just so that the chess-initiated can claim that their formal knowledge of chess is superior to casual players.  "You silly!  You didn't know that pawns aren't pieces??"  (Point of fact: no one on this thread has not been doing this, thankfully.)

Let's face it: it really is counterintuitive.  Can you think of another board game where some units you move around the board are called pieces and others are intentionally not called pieces?  A game piece is a token or unit that you move around on the board.  Moreover, we do call them all pieces when they're in the bag, so the magical identity shift that pawns undergo when the game begins escapes comprehension.  And before anyone mentions "chessmen", think: when was the last time that you used that word yourself?