Suicidal opponents

You are missing the point completely still.

'Definitely suicide. It didn't build up to anything advantageous.'

We have told you a number of ways it could easily be advantageous to that player at any given time. Material / Positional advantage is all that you are considering. Mental advantage, comfort level, players ability is being ignored in the example.

'Suicide' is most definitely the incorrect term. Not in the sense that the game would be over, I know you didn't mean that, in the sense that they are not trading material for no advantage. Just because you don't see it on the board doesn't mean it does not aide their play mentally.

He's comparing chess.com showing quick games in which players make equal looking trades with people celebrating 9/11.

Hey Imperfect_Luck, when and where did you identify a move from a game that supports your conclusions?

Anyone care to give him some advice on this?

Im still in awe of how easily this vid explained what took over 500 posts with under 10 people who even seemed to slightly share my view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg&list=UUsKZ2yOsgfNxln8xH5WkGvg&index=25

Please watch the vid 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg&list=UUsKZ2yOsgfNxln8xH5WkGvg&index=25

Its funny cause its true

I've seen the video but this is still not the point you were making so it is quite funny that you are passing this off as your own information lol.

You at no point said that taking was a mistake by the opponent or that it offered your opponent a chance to be more active. Not once. Only now that you have seen a GM say this have you decided that this was your point all along.

Your entire point was the fact that you don't find the game as fun if your opponent is 'suicidal' and trades for nothing. Not only that but you actually resign the game when this happens because it is no longer fun to you.

Now you have seen the video you are claiming this to have been your point all along. If this was truly the case you would have been able to explain it more concisely originally or, we would have been watching your own video on the subject from the beginning.

Belive what you want.

If i didnt break down in tears 2 days ago im not gonna start now

EDITS

not once have i claimed the video is mine.

It was sudgested to me after i gave further explanation of what i ment to scott (which i editied and noted in the opening post maybe an hour ago)

If you still dont understand what i was calling trade & and what i was calling sacrafice after watching that im not sure what more explanation i can give to be honnest.

Lastly i'd like to qoute myself from the opening post one sentence.

'people who have the option to move yet instead chose to trade pieces.'

note that one sentence, and the fact i must have said this over 20 times now yes i understand sometimes it is advantagous to sacrafice a piece for a greater cause.

Thats why i chose the words trade and the word sacrafice two words.

Two words to describe two seperate actions.

I think the language barrier is the biggest problem here, not the topic.

Exactly what a man with no answer might say.

It is becoming pointless discussing it with you really. You are never going to be wrong no matter what anyone posts so it's probably a waste of my time (Well, my company's time. I wouldn't be entertaining this if I were at home on a Friday afternoon)

And to think i jsut finished going out my way to edit up a nice answer for you. Mada mada

look back at the post

How can i be wrong if i never claimed anything as right.

Too many people just looking to 'one up me'

Suicidal?

I don't get it. Why would someone move equally worth piece out of range? It is sometimes good to exchange pieces, sometimes it is not, sometimes there are options. Why would exchanging pieces be cowardly? Of course you have to, sometimes, it's how the chess game develops. At least I think so. I would advise you that you first learn to play chess, see you got 600 rating. And don't say that it's because you like to resign, if you knew anything about chess you wouldn't start such topic or think exchanging pieces (equall by material and position on the board) be cowardly or pointless. If you don't like to play chess, then don't. And it's not attach its attack.

As you say, you can't be wrong because you haven't claimed anything right. Thus, you're also saying that you aren't actually correct either.

We can't say anybody is wrong when they post something on this thread, let's respect everyone's ideas. 

you - why would somone move equally worth pieces out of range?

me - i duno, i never said anyone did.

you - why would exchanging pieces be cowardly?

me - that was my personal opinion. however several people have told me through out the post that some attempt to simplify the game by exchanging pieces. Some of the arguments brought forth were confidence in your abilities end game for example. Considering most the people i play have never played me before. Meaning they dont know my strength they dont know my weakness. To casually throw away pieces with the unjustified belief 'im better endgame than he is' is clearly an act of fear not evidence.

you - you have to exchange sometimes

me - that was never in question. infact i stated that myself in the opening post.

With the belife you were truly ignorant i hope that i answered your questions. Everything else is just you being a jerk, you dont know me.

A nice answer? Telling me that I 'still' don't understand the difference between a trade and a scrifice? lol

I will try once more.....on deaf ears again no doubt, but here goes

To prove further that you are infact the one who still doesn't understand the point being made I will take a quote from your last post to Lsi2.

'Considering most the people i play have never played me before. Meaning they dont know my strength they dont know my weakness.'

As explained in about 5 different ways now, including knife fights and tests, It has NOTHING to do with knowing YOUR strengths or weaknesses. I'll give that a minute.....

It is about the player knowing their OWN strengths and weaknesses. It doesn't matter if they have never played you. Absolutely nothing to do with knowing you as a player whatsoever.

Say you start a game with a player you have never played before. Do you think they base their game on where they think your strengths and weaknesses lie, or do you think they play based on their own? (There is only one right answer)

So, they don't know you as a player at all. They still know they are weak with a busy board so they trade pieces safe in the knowledge that they are good in the end game.

Now, you might be an endgame master (they don't know that). It makes no difference. They are playing to their OWN strength. They may end up losing but if having less pieces on the board makes them more comfortable in their game then that is what most players will do. They will play to their strengths. Your strengths have nothing to do with it.

'To casually throw away pieces with the unjustified belive 'im better endgame than he is' is clearly an act of fear not proof.'

Once again, it has nothing to do with how strong or weak they percieve you to be. It is about how strong or weak they percieve themselves to be. To call it an act of 'fear' is missing the point entirely.

Yes, you said you should move pieces out of range. If "cowardly" is your personal opinion, that doesn't make it right. Don't reply with "I didn't say it was right". Well, why is it your opinion if you think it isn't right. You didn't say you have to exchange sometimes. I don't have to know you, I can just see your rating and your thinking. I never said anything against you as a person, I just said such thinking is wrong. Please don't reply, or reply but I won't answer.

Thats ineresting.

Not once have i told you that you dont understand the difference between trade and sacrafice yet you chose to belive so. 

Ive already stated that some people simplify the game to make it more comfortable.

Infact i commented on how somone explained their friend who happens to have a sort of mental thing always trades queens to simplfy the game.

Obviously he for example is doing that for himself, because he fears in his abilities.

People obviously do things for different reasons. Its up to us how we interprit them and is part of being human. Instead of accepting this you take all i say to you as an insult. Right down to when i tell you 'belive what you want'

I fail to understand why you simply dont say hey i do this because of this not fear.

You seem determind to say im wrong about something. Despite me not once saying this is right and this is wrong. Instead you try to claim im generalising everyone because interprit an action i as cowardice. Well thats fine. 

If you knew me. you would know i try to walk the middle path. not easy.

Perhaps this is how you past time at work.

Time to be frank.

Chess is a game of 2 knights 2 bishops 1 queen 1 king 2 rooks and 8 pawns each.

If you need to take out some pieces to play your idea of chess. Thats up to you. However unless you have some kinda mental problem i personally will view you as coward too afraid in your own abilities to play the game of chess. Which i repeat is a game of 2 knights 2 bishops 1 queen 1 king 2 rooks and 8 pawns each.

A good example is exchanging French bishop for knight or another bishop. Its like a pawn if pawns are on the same colour. Btw if you don't like trading then don't trade its your decision in chess whatever what may opponents plan be. If your position is cramped you would again like to trade is another example why trades will be better.

Should we be shocked that our resident self-appointed Buddhist Philosopher-Warrior operates on the same dodgy social engineering tricks to get people to answer for him?  Of course he's going to use this video as evidence of what he meant "all along".  Meanwhile, not once in all of these posts has he identified ONE MOVE, in any of his own games that supports his ideas, because that requires critical thinking from his own accord.  He knows damn well that once he does this, there's no way to hide, no way present more pointless arguments that have nothing to do with anything.  This is a BRILLIANT troll post, and a great study in the political sciences.