"The guy just wanted to get some help with the game and you start putting all the $hit in the world to this forum"
Thank you Tharuka123456 for your faithful support in the matter.
"NO, MY WORDS DID NOT IMPLY IT! LEARN TO READ!"
Can you suggest a course, perhaps "SHOUTING MAKES WHAT YOU SAY MORE VALID!!!"? I haven't registered for that one yet.
"I QUOTE: "A better example is in the Caro-Kann Defense, and the reason is self explanatory, and the key difference between the Caro-Kann and the French.""
You don't need to quote yourself. And you are on that French Caro Kann kick again. I was never asking about these two openings. You are on Day 2 of this current stint.
"Where the bleep do you get that I thought your game was a French or Caro-Kann out of "A BETTER EXAMPLE IS"?"
Where the bleep do you get that I thought my game was an example? It was THE game, not AN example. Maybe you need to learn to read and understand articles. You can sign up for my course now.
"YOU DO NOT SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THE GAME."
Yea, I guess if you ignore the game and the move e5, I didn't. If construction workers put out a sign that says "DETOUR", I guess you don't take the detour. You just drive on through with your agenda.
"IF YOU WANT ONLY AN ANSWER SPECIFIC TO THE GAME, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT GAME, NOT THE CONCEPT AS A WHOLE!"
Sorry, next time I will post the game and highlight the move three times in the annotation that I want people to address in the future. You have now set me down the right path. I am so grateful for your patience and advice. The OP has been corrected to reflect ThrillerFan's wise words.
"CLEARLY I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT READ IT AS A CONCEPT WITH EXAMPLE"
You are also clearly not the only one to continue to force your reading instead of addressing e5 now that YOU have re-read the OP post and see no evidence of me claiming the game and moves were an example. Where did I state it was an example? You and others introduced that assumption and now you are hellbent on defending it rather than saying, "Oh, I thought it was an example. In your game, I would have ______ because _______."
Usually that is how people reply when they misread the intention of a post. It doesn't mean I wasn't vague in my OP(title?), but it doesn't mean we replace it with your Caro Kann/French diatribe either.
I still have the same question regardless if I used the word "example" or not. I still have the same question regardless of the fact the title does not state e6 to e5. You actually have to read the OP and understand the context of THE game I was referring to.
"If you want answers on the specific position, you should never have put the first paragraph in the first post in there"
Ok, please tell chess.com this rule so they can ban any user that types paragraphs. This will help remove those "paragraph intruders".
"and started with the second paragraph with maybe a couple of words late in the paragraph asking if the concept had a name or something."
OMG, I started a second paragraph. How will you forgive me? And then I asked a name for it? Sometimes I get carried away and also get greedy.
"YOU WANT ADVICE ON A SPECIFIC POSITION, SPECIFY THAT!"
Sorry, as stated before, next time I will post the game and highlight the move three times in the annotation that I want people to address in the future.
"You put the concept before the position, you are getting answers to the concept. You put the position before the concept, you are getting answers to the position."
This has been enlightening, I have learned a lot from your scolding. Thank you.
"Sheesh - I never said your game was a French or Caro-Kann. You asked about the concept of moving a pawn a single square twice early on."
Your words implied it. Don't want people to read it that way? Don't type French or Caro Kann.
"The fact that you game may have been a Reti is 100% irrelevant!"
Then that shows you have an agenda not to address the Reti game I asked about. If I went into a store and asked how to change the screen size and resolution of an android device, I wouldn't want the store to tell me how to do it on an iphone. Your advice might be relevant to how you read my question, but it is actually irrelevant when it pertains to my question even though we are answering the same question from different angles.
Like how I used your word against you? Bring it on!!!
"I answered the concept with a legitimate example."
With that logic, you should sell Aladdin DVDs to rug owners then.
"I explained that in the Caro-Kann, there was a legitimate reason to move c6 and then soon afterwards play c5."
"I never said your game was a French or Caro-Kann."
Do you always use other examples that don't pertain to the context of the question at hand? When I asked about e5, I wasn't asking about any situation. I gave the actual FEN position. If I wanted a general discussion, would I have inserted the FEN? (audience: No he wouldn't have!!)
"If you are just trying to do it for your health so that you can say you did it, you will get nowhere in chess."
I have no idea what that means. Asking about a position in a game is like doing something for my health? Please do expound.
"That is like saying I am going to put a Knight on the rim just to be cool!"
Well, the difference is that e6 is a (more) normal move. N to the a or h file early on is not a normal move. This is why I stated, "If this does not apply to all pawns, then I am specifically talking about the d and e pawns at least."
"If there is a legit time to move a pawn once and then move it again, do it."
Now you are hitting on the hot spot of the nail. Care to expound on that statement?
(Interpreter: What he is asking is why e5 in the above position? He is not asking about the French, the Caro Kann, the Italian, the Sicilian, or the Annunaki. Can you explain the reasons without insulting this fine lad?)
"If you ever decide to play the Caro-Kann, you will do it a lot, but you will also see it in other openings."
Wow, you are bent on bringing up these openings aren't you? I wonder when the day will come that you realize I am not asking about the Caro Kann or the French. Let's wait and see.
"Read post two from a concept perspective, not a specific opening perspective."
Or, you could make a thread and title it "When to play e5 in the Caro Kann or the French". Do you want help with that?
This thread is about reading post 1 the way the OP intended it, by looking at the position and commenting on the position provided. Why does e5 in the position and subsequent positions show e5 as the top or one of the top moves.
Hey, I am not trying sell you crack. I don't want you to get hooked on anything, but give it a try. Why e5 in the position in the OP?
NO, MY WORDS DID NOT IMPLY IT! LEARN TO READ!
I QUOTE: "A better example is in the Caro-Kann Defense, and the reason is self explanatory, and the key difference between the Caro-Kann and the French."
Where the bleep do you get that I thought your game was a French or Caro-Kann out of "A BETTER EXAMPLE IS"?
The answer is you don't. The answer is either you are too lazy to read, or you like to put words in people's mouth. Which is it?
NEXT, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, RE-READ YOUR ORIGINAL POST!!! YOU DO NOT SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO THE GAME. THE FIRST SENTENCE YOU TALK ABOUT IS A CONCEPT! THE CONCEPT OF MOVING THE SAME PAWN TWICE A SINGLE SQUARE EACH TIME EARLY ON IN THE GAME! IF YOU WANT ONLY AN ANSWER SPECIFIC TO THE GAME, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT GAME, NOT THE CONCEPT AS A WHOLE!
AS FAR AS READING THE POST AS YOU INTENDED IT - WHY DON'T YOU TRY LEARNING TO RE-READ WHAT YOU POST AND PRETEND YOU ARE AN OUTSIDER - HOW WOULD THEY INTERPRET IT? IF YOU READ POST 5 AS WELL, CLEARLY I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT READ IT AS A CONCEPT WITH EXAMPLE AND NOT A QUESTION ABOUT A SPECIFIC POSITION. MAYBE LEARN TO PROOFREAD AND MAKE SURE THAT YOUR QUESTIONS READ AS INTENDED!!! YOU WANT ADVICE ON A SPECIFIC POSITION, SPECIFY THAT!
If you want answers on the specific position, you should never have put the first paragraph in the first post in there, and started with the second paragraph with maybe a couple of words late in the paragraph asking if the concept had a name or something. Then it would be clear that you are asking specific to that position.
You put the concept before the position, you are getting answers to the concept.
You put the position before the concept, you are getting answers to the position.
ENGLISH 101!
YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT THE FOLLOWING TWO STATEMENTS READ THE SAME THING! (And this has NOTHING to do with your position in post 1 and all to do with your English in post 1):
Example A: In the French McCutchen Main line, why should White recapture on move 7 with the b-pawn, creating doubled pawns, when he can take with the Bishop, maintaining a healthy pawn chain? I thought doubled pawns were bad?
Example B: Can someone explain to me why anybody would want doubled pawns when it can be avoided? Why wouldn't you go out of the way to avoid doubled pawns? Like look at the French McCutchen. Everyone takes on c3 with the pawn instead of the Bishop!
You word it like example A, and you are getting answers on the French McCutchen.
You word it like example B, you are getting answers on doubled pawns with people interpreting your "EXAMPLE" as just that, an example to illustrate what you are asking IN GENERAL!