Forums

In Sicilian Dragon is it a good idea to exchange the Black g2 bishop for a rook?

Sort:
yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 2, 2011
0
#21
Conzipe wrote:I don't get it, what is this supposedly "poor judgement" Priyadharshan made?

Well, you are the chess coach. May be you can tell if it is my understanding that is actually poor. Here is what I understand:

1) Not inviting a debate: some believe that the dragon is (theoretically) refuted. After studying the Dragon, that was also my conclusion (read my blog post to know why). Judgement#1: You don't play with a gambit style against a refuted opening. This is logical: why take a risk if you believe your position is winning? The second game I posted shows that Priya plays the position in a gambit style and lost against (almost) 200 points lower rated player. Preliminary conclusion: he is one of those who doesn't think/know if/how the Dragon can be refuted.

2) What makes the Dragon (Yugoslav 9.0-0-0) to be considered "refuted"? The answer is the winning queenside pawn. So dragon player must play for the middlegame, sacrificing redundant material if necessary (one of the Rook), and opening up position (especially the center). White has Kingside pawn storm for the middlegame attack. But this is a race (so there is a strategy how not to be behind in speed).

How White should play the middlegame? First, of course, always pay attention to the Queenside pawns, ensuring that the endgame always favor White (if ever reach the endgame stage). Second, White cannot be behind in the attack. It is a race, who is faster will win the race. White's attack is the Kingside pawn storm (e.g. h2-h4-h5). This is a little bit behind in tempo, so White must temporarily close the center to keep up with Black advantage in speed of attack.

The thematic Nc3-Ne4 is basically to "close" the center. This is not so clear to ordinary eyes, because it is more "tactical" than the ordinary positional concept of closing a position.

The following position I would never want to defend (as White!), especially against much stronger opponent (I will explain later how it connects to the "grand plan"):

What you can see in the position is:

1) Black has full initiative to attack due to open center. The redundant Black's Rook has been exchanged with one of more useful White's Bishop (the Rook only better in the endgame, not in the middlegame).

2) It is apparent that White's pawn storm is behind in tempo (and the Kingside in general is a bit under-developed). So Black should not "help" White to gain tempo in the Kingside (e.g. by putting his pieces in front of the pawns, or move his pawn as to create another "hook" for Kingside pawn attack. Black should let just g6-pawn to be the only "hook" for White's h2-h4-h5 attack, and create his own attack which will be faster.

One plan for the big attack is to provoke the b2-pawn to advanced to b3 (e.g by Qa3 where the Rook already at b8) and become a "hook" for a7-a5-a4 pawn attack. I believe this will be faster and undefendable with best play.

My difficulty in playing the White side of the Dragon is in closing the center while preparing for pawn storm attack and keep the winning pawn endgame. It is difficult because I'm weak at tactics, and this strategy, even tho positional in nature, requires strong calculation/visualization skill because it involves complex pieces exchange. But once I can improve my tactics, even now, I'm more than happy playing the White side of the Dragon against stronger opponent.

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 2, 2011
0
#22
Elubas wrote:
Lay off him, man. He's a lot better than you. He probably knew there were dangers, but just thought he could take a risk -- he's certainly not clueless about the concept of a positional exchange sacrifice.

Of course he is a lot better than me. But look at my blog post title: "The Weakest Link in Master Level". I'm not a master, but I'm confident with what I know...

The man seems to be an attacking tactical player (hint: game #2). You can be a strong master only by tactics like this. But my "research" showed that he will stop improving before 2400. Only until you become a better positional player you can climb the GM barrier. It will take a lot of time for player like this to work it out imho.

I group more advanced tactical players as in the 2200-2400 range. They usually have typical tactical skill that is way better than 2000 players. But above 2400, even Ivanchuck has difficulty to prove his tactical prowess (especially in faster games). Because it doesn't matter much anymore.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 3, 2011
0
#23

You're not a master, and judging from the tone of your posts, don't play in many tournaments, at least against strong opposition. Trust me, as someone who actually regularly plays tournament chess, and plays masters, you can't have a clue of what you're talking about until you go out there and see. I used to have some ideas just like you about what makes a master, and how they then improve, but it had to be substantially adjusted once I actually played these guys.

With that said, the authority you use on your blog post, apparently as a coach of players who are better than him, is simply laughable. But I suppose it's doing no harm -- I'm sure nobody would take that seriously anyway.

But if you are really so confident, email GM Panchanatan (who answers questions here in a weekly column, like IM Silman used to do) and see what he thinks about these masters and their play. Something makes me think you won't do that. But if you don't, that just shows that you don't actually want to find out what the "weakest link" is in masters; you just want to preach a random opinion of yours and be done with it.

As for the position itself, as if it mattered: Yes, black has strong compensation, I agree. But then again, what else is there to do with your dark squared bishop? Stick it on a3 to defend b2? It's not like that is great either. A reasonable explanation to white's decision could be something like this: "My position is passive, but I need to try something. Ok, I can trade my bishop for his rook, which is risky here. But at least that way he has to prove his attack; if I just keep my bishop, then not only am I passive, even if black screws up his attack, I still have nothing to look forward to. So I'll take the gamble."

It certainly was not "Free rook! Yay!" Otherwise he could not be a master.

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 3, 2011
0
#24
Elubas wrote:You're not a master, and judging from the tone of your posts, don't play in many tournaments, at least against strong opposition. Trust me, as someone who actually regularly plays tournament chess, and plays masters, you can't have a clue of what you're talking about until you go out there and see. I used to have some ideas just like you about what makes a master, and how they then improve, but it had to be substantially adjusted once I actually played these guys.

The difference between you and me is: you make a blanket statement, telling me to trust something, telling me that you have thought what I have thought, that I'm following your mistakes, but you don't give a clear idea of what you are talking about, no backup, no proof. Of course I would love to hear useful advice from you.

Elubas wrote: With that said, the authority you use on your blog post, apparently as a coach of players who are better than him, is simply laughable. But I suppose it's doing no harm -- I'm sure nobody would take that seriously anyway.

I'm in a hurry to post this, don't really get your point, but of course it's doing no harm, as my intention is positive. As for the laughable part, of course I knew that risk. It is not the first time for me to do things like this. But I always proved what I said. People who laughed, laughed only for themselves at the end. Just cross your fingers.

Elubas wrote:
But if you are really so confident, email GM Panchanatan (who answers questions here in a weekly column, like IM Silman used to do) and see what he thinks about these masters and their play. Something makes me think you won't do that. But if you don't, that just shows that you don't actually want to find out what the "weakest link" is in masters; you just want to preach a random opinion of yours and be done with it.

You are absolutely wrong about my motives. You are right I have actually never wanted to find out about the "weakest link" in masters. Have you? Why should I? I don't care with others' weakest links. I care about mine. There are a lot of opinions out there. Aren't those enough? I can say what Dan Heisman said. I can say what Dvoretsky said. I can say what Silman said. Did I?

Elubas wrote:
As for the position itself, as if it mattered: Yes, black has strong compensation, I agree. But then again, what else is there to do with your dark squared bishop? Stick it on a3 to defend b2? It's not like that is great either. A reasonable explanation to white's decision could be something like this: "My position is passive, but I need to try something. Ok, I can trade my bishop for his rook, which is risky here. But at least that way he has to prove his attack; if I just keep my bishop, then not only am I passive, even if black screws up his attack, I still have nothing to look forward to. So I'll take the gamble."

It certainly was not "Free rook! Yay!" Otherwise he could not be a master.

So you agree that Black has compensation. But that is not enough. It is ike saying a blanket statement because any normal position has compensation. Strong compensation?? You mean White made mistake?

What you might not see is (read again your post) that the exchange was just part of a bigger "decision" to open the center. The exchange is mandatory in that context, not an option. I'm not going to say that he expected to have a Queen exchange, as such is impossible. But a master will not think for only that one move ("should I take the Rook or not?")

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 4, 2011
0
#25
Conzipe wrote:The moment Priyadharshan took on f8 it's pretty much forced as black is threatening to get the rook out actively with Rfd8 or Rfc8. Usually white has to take the rook sooner or later in this line if black really insists on it. Then it's always a question if black has enough compensation, which is tricky to judge.

If we are going to claim that Priyadharshan made a poor judgement we would have to blaim hes timing of playing the move, not the fact that he took the f8 rook which he really needs to do one time or another if black is aiming to activate it.

You are right, the exchange will usually happen, it is just a matter of the right time. In Priya situation, we agree that it is forced. In my understanding, the right time (to allow the center becomes open) is the moment where White's Kingside attack can keep up with the speed of Black's Queenside attack. To slow down Black's attack, White has to temporarily close the center. Imo, the critical decision is the Knight manouver 14.NxN.

Does Black has compensation? I believe so. I have tried to play the Dragon using engine, combined with my judgement about how White should play the game, and I can always avoid a draw (White always win). The key, like I said, is the Queenside pawn majority. This is the only feature that can force a full point, thus I concluded that the Dragon is refuted. Try by yourself.

Look at this position with the thematic Ne4:

The center is "closed". The only way Black can open the center is by f5, which gives White 2 things:

(1) White has dangerous direct attack along a2-g8 diagonal (with Bc4)

(2) The f5 pawn becomes a "hook" for tempo-friendly White's Kingside pawn attack.

Other Black efforts to exchange pieces will only lead to a loss because White has winning Queenside pawn endgame.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 4, 2011
0
#26
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
Elubas wrote:You're not a master, and judging from the tone of your posts, don't play in many tournaments, at least against strong opposition. Trust me, as someone who actually regularly plays tournament chess, and plays masters, you can't have a clue of what you're talking about until you go out there and see. I used to have some ideas just like you about what makes a master, and how they then improve, but it had to be substantially adjusted once I actually played these guys.

The difference between you and me is: you make a blanket statement, telling me to trust something, telling me that you have thought what I have thought, that I'm following your mistakes, but you don't give a clear idea of what you are talking about, no backup, no proof. Of course I would love to hear useful advice from you.

Ok, you don't have to trust me. All I'm saying is that it's clear you don't have a lot of OTB experience, else you wouldn't be making so many of your own blanket statements that you assume to be true because they came from you, especially so authoritatively.

Elubas wrote: With that said, the authority you use on your blog post, apparently as a coach of players who are better than him, is simply laughable. But I suppose it's doing no harm -- I'm sure nobody would take that seriously anyway.

I'm in a hurry to post this, don't really get your point, but of course it's doing no harm, as my intention is positive. As for the laughable part, of course I knew that risk. It is not the first time for me to do things like this. But I always proved what I said. People who laughed, laughed only for themselves at the end. Just cross your fingers.

The reason why it's laughable is that you say it as if you know the answer, yet all you're doing is taking a wild guess that is probably much less reliable than that of someone who is actually familiar with master level chess -- a master level player.

Elubas wrote:
But if you are really so confident, email GM Panchanatan (who answers questions here in a weekly column, like IM Silman used to do) and see what he thinks about these masters and their play. Something makes me think you won't do that. But if you don't, that just shows that you don't actually want to find out what the "weakest link" is in masters; you just want to preach a random opinion of yours and be done with it.

You are absolutely wrong about my motives. You are right I have actually never wanted to find out about the "weakest link" in masters. Have you? Why should I? I don't care with others' weakest links. I care about mine. There are a lot of opinions out there. Aren't those enough? I can say what Dan Heisman said. I can say what Dvoretsky said. I can say what Silman said. Did I?

You care about your opinion and yours only, you seem to state. Isn't that the definition of a bigot?

Elubas wrote:
As for the position itself, as if it mattered: Yes, black has strong compensation, I agree. But then again, what else is there to do with your dark squared bishop? Stick it on a3 to defend b2? It's not like that is great either. A reasonable explanation to white's decision could be something like this: "My position is passive, but I need to try something. Ok, I can trade my bishop for his rook, which is risky here. But at least that way he has to prove his attack; if I just keep my bishop, then not only am I passive, even if black screws up his attack, I still have nothing to look forward to. So I'll take the gamble."

It certainly was not "Free rook! Yay!" Otherwise he could not be a master.

So you agree that Black has compensation. But that is not enough. It is ike saying a blanket statement because any normal position has compensation. Strong compensation?? You mean White made mistake?

What you might not see is (read again your post) that the exchange was just part of a bigger "decision" to open the center. The exchange is mandatory in that context, not an option. I'm not going to say that he expected to have a Queen exchange, as such is impossible. But a master will not think for only that one move ("should I take the Rook or not?")

Are you saying that once white can play Bxf8, he should do so; that the decision to take the exchange was really before that point? That might be the case -- I wasn't looking with that much depth. The point is that, again, a master is going to weigh his options -- he is not going to capture something on sight without considering the consequences.

See that? I'm respecting him. I'm assuming that he really thought things through, whether he made the right decision or not. You are not respecting him, because you on the other hand assumed that he is not as positionally adept as you and doesn't understand the concept of a positional sacrifice.

It's arrogant, disrespectful, and comical for a sub-master player to outright criticize the play of a master -- no matter what! Even if they blunder a piece. Vladimir Kramnik once did worse than that -- he blundered mate in 1, when if he had just played a reasonable move the game would have been balanced. Petrosian blundered his queen when positionally dominating Bronstein. That's a beginner mistake. You have probably heard of these famous cases.

If you answer nothing else, can you tell me if it would be reasonable to, in the context of Kramnik and Petrosian's blundered games, say "How could he play like that," and then add a bunch of question marks as if it's ridiculous? We both know that both of them are still unbelievable players.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 4, 2011
0
#27
Bankwell wrote:
Elubas wrote: It's arrogant, disrespectful, and comical for a sub-master player to outright criticize the play of a master -- no matter what! 

Any student who doesn't brazenly question those he presumes to be his superiors can never achieve anything in this life.

This quote tells me everything I need to know to fully evaluate you as a person.  You unfailingly accept your own mediocrity, and are doomed to a life of craven sycophantry.  You are a coward.  This is your defining trait.

Yusuf: you make some good points here.  And I wish you well in your continued studies.  Thank you for your contributions.

This is the most pathetic, hilarious thing I have ever seen. Thank goodness for the trolls! Laughing

So you advocate swearing at masters? The problem here is not questioning a master; the problem is respecting a master. If you think a master is wrong, you say so respectfully.

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 4, 2011
0
#28
Bankwell wrote:
Yusuf: you make some good points here.  And I wish you well in your continued studies.  Thank you for your contributions.

Thank you Bankwell

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 4, 2011
0
#29
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
Bankwell wrote:
Yusuf: you make some good points here.  And I wish you well in your continued studies.  Thank you for your contributions.

Thank you Bankwell

You do know that Bankwell is a troll, right?

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 4, 2011
0
#30

Look, to settle this:

"I can't understand how a 2376 plays the Dragon like that???"

I just don't get why, if you didn't intend to outright criticize, you would obnoxiously use three question marks. It just seems like there was some definite intent behind it. I suppose I could be wrong, but seeing as three are unnecessary, it seems like the presence of suggestiveness, at least to some degree is one of the few reasonable conclusions that can be made.

And also, "like that" -- as if "that" is just utter crap.

Sorry, I'm sensitive to grammar Smile

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 4, 2011
0
#31
Elubas wroteOk, you don't have to trust me. All I'm saying is that it's clear you don't have a lot of OTB experience, else you wouldn't be making so many of your own blanket statements that you assume to be true because they came from you, especially so authoritatively.

I said what I think. When I'm sure with what I think, right or wrong, you will know it, you will not hear it as if I'm not sure with what I'm talking about. Of course, you may demand a more eloquent way of expressing opinion, a more humble way. May be that is all that you care about.

Yusuf Prasojo wroteYou are absolutely wrong about my motives. You are right I have actually never wanted to find out about the "weakest link" in masters. Have you? Why should I? I don't care with others' weakest links. I care about mine.
Elubas wrote:
You care about your opinion and yours only, you seem to state. Isn't that the definition of a bigot?

Not definition but characteristics. But you're wrong because that's not what I actually stated.

Elubas wrote:
The reason why it's laughable is that you say it as if you know the answer, yet all you're doing is taking a wild guess that is probably much less reliable than that of someone who is actually familiar with master level chess -- a master level player.

You make assumptions yourself. And you seem very sure about it. I don't have the need to say what I know, but if it doesn't hurt and may help anyone, why not? I might get the benefit myself from expressing my "guesses". I offer explanation, logic or reason behind my guesses so readers don't have to take it blindly.

Elubas wrote:Are you saying that once white can play Bxf8, he should do so; that the decision to take the exchange was really before that point? That might be the case -- I wasn't looking with that much depth. The point is that, again, a master is going to weigh his options -- he is not going to capture something on sight without considering the consequences.

I'm clearly aware that in internet forums, some people compete to show who is who, who knows better about the subject. So take it easy, personal issues are not my intention/interest.

But I get your point, that a master is not likely to play without thinking at all.

Elubas wrote:Vladimir Kramnik once did worse than that -- he blundered mate in 1, when if he had just played a reasonable move the game would have been balanced. Petrosian blundered his queen when positionally dominating Bronstein. That's a beginner mistake. You have probably heard of these famous cases. If you answer nothing else, can you tell me if it would be reasonable to, in the context of Kramnik and Petrosian's blundered games, say "How could he play like that," and then add a bunch of question marks as if it's ridiculous? We both know that both of them are still unbelievable players.

Yes, I would say that: "How can a very good player, my idol, makes such a basic mistake??? Is he drunk or something???" But no, Kramnik is not my idol. I make blunders. It IS a weakness. Do you think Kramnik doesn't have one?

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 4, 2011
0
#32
Elubas wrote:
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
Bankwell wrote:
Yusuf: you make some good points here.  And I wish you well in your continued studies.  Thank you for your contributions.

Thank you Bankwell

You do know that Bankwell is a troll, right?

What troll? He gives logical arguments. Most of the troll are smart people. That is more important to me because I browse the internet "emotionlessly", so what matters is what is being said. Trolls are also entertaining (if you keep your emotion aside), it keeps the site better than other chess websites.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 4, 2011
0
#33

"How can a very good player, my idol, makes such a basic mistake???"

Well, because he's human. But, this is a more respectful way of saying it than your original post.

"Of course, you may demand a more eloquent way of expressing opinion, a more humble way. May be that is all that you care about."

Bingo. Oh well, not everyone has humility. They should, but I'll accept otherwise I suppose. It just annoyed me that was all. But I should know better -- this whole discussion is pointless for me to drag on. I think I've made my point, so farewell.

-waller-
-waller-
Oct 5, 2011
0
#34

Everyone makes mistakes. I think some people here need to respect that.

yusuf, I doubt very much you have a good enough understanding of the position involved to judge whether this 2376 rated master made an error of judgement. Not unless your real life OTB rating exceeds your chess.com rating. Does it? Funnily enough, we have exactly the same rating (at time of posting). I know I can't say for sure what his thoughts behind the moves were, or whether it was a good one. I can try and understand it, and post my thoughts, but I can't just criticise it and say my analysis proves that he's an idiot. You do need to learn some respect for people who have worked their way up to the higher echelons of chess. And taking the comments of a 1400 troll as justification for your "good points", well, it just gets sillier and sillier really.

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 5, 2011
0
#35
-waller- wrote:Everyone makes mistakes. I think some people here need to respect that.

I think you are exaggerating.

-waller- wrote:
yusuf, I doubt very much you have a good enough understanding of the position involved to judge whether this 2376 rated master made an error of judgement. Not unless your real life OTB rating exceeds your chess.com rating. Does it? Funnily enough, we have exactly the same rating (at time of posting).

Funny thing is if you think that I can have my own opinion (especially against the higher rating) only after I have a high rating.

Can't you see bad/wrong opinions in the forum? Do you think it is better if I search for bad/wrong opinions/games from a very low rated players and say "Hey, you don't know what you are talking about, your rating is too low to understand chess". I cannot see strong players ever did that, only idiots.

If you, whatever your rating is, think that I was wrong, you can say so. Better is with chess-related reasons, but even if not, I can accept that, even if as silly as "I don't know what is being discussed, but your rating is low enough so I belive that you are wrong".

-waller- wrote:I know I can't say for sure what his thoughts behind the moves were, or whether it was a good one. I can try and understand it, and post my thoughts, but I can't just criticise it and say my analysis proves that he's an idiot.

You are exaggerating. Nobody is trying to prove anybody else as an idiot. If there is, it is you (trying to proof that I am Laughing)

-waller- wrote:You do need to learn some respect for people who have worked their way up to the higher echelons of chess. 

No, -waller- I'm sorry. You need to learn some respect for people, whether they are higher echelons of chess or not.

-waller- wrote:And taking the comments of a 1400 troll as justification for your "good points", well, it just gets sillier and sillier really.

For my "good points"?? No, -waller- I'm sorry, you don't understand.

I was trying to respect people. I'm not good at it, you know, but a simple "Thank you Bankwell" was not too dificult for me.

But Bankwell had a point really. He wrote short sentence, but was very meaningful. Not because he was backing me up, but read it again, you will understand. Try to respect people thoughts, just by focusing on what is being said, instead of who is saying it, or who is getting the credit.

-waller-
-waller-
Oct 5, 2011
0
#36
yusuf_prasojo wrote:
-waller- wrote:Everyone makes mistakes. I think some people here need to respect that.

I think you are exaggerating.

-waller- wrote:
yusuf, I doubt very much you have a good enough understanding of the position involved to judge whether this 2376 rated master made an error of judgement. Not unless your real life OTB rating exceeds your chess.com rating. Does it? Funnily enough, we have exactly the same rating (at time of posting).

Funny thing is if you think that I can have my own opinion (especially against the higher rating) only after I have a high rating.

Can't you see bad/wrong opinions in the forum? Do you think it is better if I search for bad/wrong opinions/games from a very low rated players and say "Hey, you don't know what you are talking about, your rating is too low to understand chess". I cannot see strong players ever did that, only idiots.

If you, whatever your rating is, think that I was wrong, you can say so. Better is with chess-related reasons, but even if not, I can accept that, even if as silly as "I don't know what is being discussed, but your rating is low enough so I belive that you are wrong".

-waller- wrote:I know I can't say for sure what his thoughts behind the moves were, or whether it was a good one. I can try and understand it, and post my thoughts, but I can't just criticise it and say my analysis proves that he's an idiot.

You are exaggerating. Nobody is trying to prove anybody else as an idiot. If there is, it is you (trying to proof that I am )

-waller- wrote:You do need to learn some respect for people who have worked their way up to the higher echelons of chess. 

No, -waller- I'm sorry. You need to learn some respect for people, whether they are higher echelons of chess or not.

-waller- wrote:And taking the comments of a 1400 troll as justification for your "good points", well, it just gets sillier and sillier really.

For my "good points"?? No, -waller- I'm sorry, you don't understand.

I was trying to respect people. I'm not good at it, you know, but a simple "Thank you Bankwell" was not too dificult for me.

But Bankwell had a point really. He wrote short sentence, but was very meaningful. Not because he was backing me up, but read it again, you will understand. Try to respect people thoughts, just by focusing on what is being said, instead of who is saying it, or who is getting the credit.

First off, thought I should say, I didn't mean to come across as laying into you. I try and have respect for all people. Maybe I came across too strong. My apologies. Let me try to re-address the balance.

The problem I had is not necessarily that you have your own opinion. I have my own opinion on the subject: I won't voice it, since I am very unfamiliar with the lines in question so I don't think it would mean much.

The problem is that you do seem to be bashing him. Post #5 - well I'll let you off, but the tone of your question to me at least seems offensive, the insinuation is there that you are mocking his play. Post #7 - you say he "should have made better judgement" - this comes off badly, I'm afraid. You've turned it from being your opinion into stating it as a fact, which isn't the way to present it.

I will now answer your other points:

- I respect that you are talking about chess and showing analysis, which leads me to assume your intentions are good here. Hell, its a lot better than most of the threads in these forums recently.

- I don't see how I'm exaggerating when I say everyone makes mistakes. Elubas's examples showed even the best players make them.

-When I said you don't have a good enough position to judge whether the master made an error of judgement, it was incredibly poor wording on my part. Please do post your judgement, its interesting for us all! I was alluding to the fact that the way you presented it came off as "my opinion is the the definitive truth of the matter". Your opinion is still valid of course, it just all comes down to the way you present it. People won't be inclined towards even looking at your analysis if you show it like that, so its in your interest too!

-As for Bankwell, he doesn't have a good point, just part of one. You do question your superiors. You don't do so brazenly. They will just refuse to impart any more of their knowledge. Questioning your superiors firmly, but respectfully, is a far better way to go, and they should be happy about it.

-The rest of Bankwell's post is just a torrent of abuse aimed at Elubas. Nothing of worth or substance contained within.

yusuf, I hope this assures you of my respect for all people, and also I hope that you might have gained some insight into the nature and tone of posting. I realise my original post was way off that mark.

Regards,

Dan

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 5, 2011
0
#37

"I was trying to respect people." -- yusuf

So I suppose you were trying to respect that master too? Face it, the only reason you're respecting Bankwell was because he actually agreed with you (you must have been getting desperate; it's like looking for approval from a two year old -- "See? Mikey thinks I'm smart!").

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 5, 2011
0
#38
Elubas wrote:

"I was trying to respect people." -- yusuf

So I suppose you were trying to respect that master too?

I wasn't trying to respect anyone, because in my heart I don't have negative feelings towards others, not even you. About how to present things, that's about skill. One of the reason I'm not skillful on this subject is because I tend to asume that everyone else are also like me, where actually they are not (Most people are bad, they are only good at acting good).

I don't like to address personal issues or social issues, but I like psychology very much, that's why I will always reply to posts like this, even if it is unrelated to chess. So I will not say farewell here.

Elubas wrote:Face it, the only reason you're respecting Bankwell was because he actually agreed with you (you must have been getting desperate; it's like looking for approval from a two year old -- "See? Mikey thinks I'm smart!").

Do you think I can not face such thing??? Go ahead, you will know what I can face Laughing

And why are you saying that word "desperate"? You seem to be very familiar with this word.

I know that many of you supporting each others (I read those trolling threads too). Do you think I desperately need support from Bankwell? I don't really know what happened between you and Bankwell, but I'm not looking forward to take side Laughing. Good luck with your issues, thing like that will never happen to me, because I know who I am.

Now tell me, which one you are most interested, the real thing why I said "thank you" to Bankwell, or the more psychological things like why I might look for approval from 2-year-old Mickey.

yusuf_prasojo
yusuf_prasojo
Oct 5, 2011
0
#39
-waller- wrote:
First off, thought I should say, I didn't mean to come across as laying into you. I try and have respect for all people. Maybe I came across too strong. My apologies. 

No, it is my words which are always too strong, regardless of my intention. It is me who should say apology but I won't, because If I have to be consistent, I will have to say it everytime. But yes, I was signalling something.

-waller- wrote:
The problem I had is not necessarily that you have your own opinion. I have my own opinion on the subject: I won't voice it, since I am very unfamiliar with the lines in question so I don't think it would mean much.

So, if you are familiar with the line, you will voice it. I am familiar with the Dragon, that's why I voiced it. If you look at engine analysis, there was nothing wrong with what Priya was doing, that's why I thought it may mean something to somebody. I was trying to offer my findings, right or wrong, which you may have never read in your opening books. But you can proof me wrong by doing extensive engine analysis on the positions.

-waller- wrote:
The problem is that you do seem to be bashing him. Post #5 - well I'll let you off, but the tone of your question to me at least seems offensive, the insinuation is there that you are mocking his play.

Post #5: "I can't understand how a 2376 plays the Dragon like that???"

I have explained in detail (in previous posts)

 

-waller- wrote:
Post #7 - you say he "should have made better judgement" - this comes off badly, I'm afraid. You've turned it from being your opinion into stating it as a fact, which isn't the way to present it.

So it is about how to present it. Bingo! I will present it once more time... but I'm afraid it would be worse Laughing

Relax -waller-, you are not caring about Priya. Priya may be a greater man than you may think he is.

-waller- wrote:
- I respect that you are talking about chess and showing analysis, which leads me to assume your intentions are good here. Hell, its a lot better than most of the threads in these forums recently.

I told you -waller-, those threads can be good for chessdotcom. If you are interested with them, you can log in and post there. If you don't have interest in them, you can read the strategy cloumn instead. Chessdotcom is attractive to many kinds of people.

-waller- wrote:
- I don't see how I'm exaggerating when I say everyone makes mistakes. Elubas's examples showed even the best players make them.

My concern was not about mistakes or who makes mistake. My concern was about MY understanding which seemed to be not in line with a high rating (2375) player.

To be honest, I'm not very familiar with 2300 games. I'm more familiar with 2700+ games. Not that 2700+ games are more important, but that's my first priority for now.

-waller- wrote:
-When I said you don't have a good enough position to judge whether the master made an error of judgement, it was incredibly poor wording on my part. Please do post your judgement, its interesting for us all! I was alluding to the fact that the way you presented it came off as "my opinion is the the definitive truth of the matter". Your opinion is still valid of course, it just all comes down to the way you present it. People won't be inclined towards even looking at your analysis if you show it like that, so its in your interest too!

I have posted my judgements. As for the way I presented it, let me handle my own issues Embarassed

-waller- wrote:
-As for Bankwell, he doesn't have a good point,...

-The rest of Bankwell's post is just a torrent of abuse aimed at Elubas. Nothing of worth or substance contained within.

Oh yes he has. He said something related to psychology, which is true. The problem is, he attacked Elubas by saying the truth, but that's because they have issues between them prior to that.

-waller- wrote:
You do question your superiors. You don't do so brazenly. They will just refuse to impart any more of their knowledge. Questioning your superiors firmly, but respectfully, is a far better way to go, and they should be happy about it.

Who? Which superior? Priya? Who is he? Is he chessdotcom's contributor? To be honest, I found that knowledgable people tend to keep important knowledge for themselves. As for the other "common" knowledge, you can browse the internet and find a lot of them.

-waller- wrote:
yusuf, I hope this assures you of my respect for all people, and also I hope that you might have gained some insight into the nature and tone of posting. I realise my original post was way off that mark.

Relax -waller-, you're a good man (geez! I hate saying this kind of words). And thanks for your good intention. Yes, of course I know about the nature and tone of posting. Just like we know how to be good at chess but we cannot be the one.

renumeratedfrog01
renumeratedfrog01
Oct 6, 2011
0
#40

Another thread hijacked but idiotic trolls.