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

Yes. But at least your question was answered, right?

"If you look at engine analysis, there was nothing wrong with what Priya was doing"

[By the way Yusuf, I sincerely apologize that I have to take such a tiny quote, but I found the contradiction rather funny]

I'm pretty sure you were making quite a point about him "making the wrong judgments," and how he "needs to work on his positional play" just a few days ago. Again, it all goes back to posts #5 and #7, and since it seems like you re-read them, you should know where we're coming from.

You can't just insult someone and then 10 days later say "Oh I didn't have anything against you. I think you're great." Because you had a specific psychological state when you said what you did, in the way that you did, in posts 5 and 7, and you can't go back in time to change that, no matter how you feel now.

And yes, it's all about how you present what you say. A modest tone is much better than an arrogant one, especially when trying to respect players who have done well in chess.

In fact, you could have made a post with the exact same content as post #5 in a perfectly respectful way. Maybe something like "I'm surprised the master did this. It seems like black would have strong compensation. Interesting." But saying "how can he play like that" seems to imply that "like that" means "like an idiot," or "like a beginner" in the context of that sentence, especially when you shove in so many question marks.

Note how this contradicts what Bankwell said about me being against questioning a master: He said I am doomed to listen to everything they say like a zombie. But, since I approved of a more respectful version of your post #5, I'd like to see a response on how his argument still holds please.

What are you talking about? I will re-explain what I meant in above quote:

If you look at engine analysis (16 depth or so), you will see that Priya's move was the best, as if there is nothing wrong there. But play the positions (the one played by Priya and the one I suggested) till the end you will see what I have seen.

In simpler language, what I said in the quote is: "I understand -waller- if right now you cannot give your judgement about the position you're not familiar with, because I myself understood the position through hours of study, not just a quick glance at the position"

I believe your statement here is still in context with the previous one, where you made mistake in understanding the quote.

I have never had anything against Priya as a person, and I have never thought he is great either. Nothing I have tried to change, and nothing has changed with my feeling. It is obvious that you don't understand psychology.

Here is what he said:

How can I tell you that his argument still hold? Psychology is the highest level of logic. You cannot understand it by reading psychology books. If you don't understand it, you will never understand it.

Yusuf, I apologize if I was wrong about your psychological state and intentions with posts 5 and 7 -- but you certainly know where I stand . Only you know if you were bashing him or not . I get the feeling though that behind the screen you're thinking "Oh crap, he caught me," despite what you're presenting to me. Haha, I'll never know, but it's fun to speculate

By the way, you seem to overlook that there is a difference between the phrase "outright criticize," and "questioning." That is why his argument does not hold.

Haha of course you'll never know  But a few sellect people will really know. Some speculate, some are pretty sure with what they know.

But the main point (beside chess) is about me being arrogant, impolite, etc. Of course I can accept that. I will remain the way I am, here or in other threads. Luckily, in the real world I'm considered as a very humble person. I achieved this simply by restricting my self to say only what is "necessary". Here in the internet, I will say anything (such is fun!). The only thing that will hold me is if it will hurt somebody (but I'm not good at it, as I have some kind of emotional state most do not have).

You may be right. English is apparently not my first language. That's why you have to take that into consideration when you try to understand written language. For example, tripple question mark (where you have put your focus into) may mean different thing to you than to me.

On the other hand, psychology sometimes is about reading between the lines. How "outright criticize" can be different grammatically with "questioning" has little relevance.

Bankwell can have his psychological evaluation about you not 100% just because of that small sentence of yours, to be precise. He has known you in many other threads. That's how it works.

no duh

take it

"He has known you in many other threads. That's how it works."

I don't know why you keep assuming this conclusion to be true; it's actually false. I did not know of Bankwell until he made that post here. Believe it or not, Bankwell was lying when he said I was spamming his private messages -- the only thing I did was leave him a note. Now I won't say it was a friendly note, but I think our bond of respect (that I give to everyone) was broken when he made ridiculous claims about me based on absolutely minute "data." When somebody breaks that bond, I feel no compulsion to then be nice to them.

Don't trust everything you hear -- a lot of times people make provocative posts to stir things up and nothing else.