Have any problems?
I may be a Bishop but i will guard you like a knight my Queen.
Im currious if im the only one who feels this way;
Most of my games, i seem to play suicidal opponents. Opponents who have the option to move out of attach, yet chose instead to trade pecies.
I find this spitful cowardly and pointless WHY?
Well since as long as i can rememebr ive always considered suicide the act of desperate deledued ppl and only desperately deldued people GLORIFY it as anything else. eg. 9/11.
Infact i will go as far to say suicide/mindless trade is the most retarded plan humanly possible in any context. any game. its jsut common sence to me yet it seems the amout of times i encoutner this is endless.
Im not talking about sacraficing a pecie to gain an advantage eg. sacraficing a knight to kill ur opponents queen im talking about equal trade. knight for knight knight for bishop bishp for knight rook for rook queen for queen.
I sit there looking at the score board thinking this is exactly why they added a score board to this game, to make its utter pointlessness (point*) more apparent, yet i encoutner this so often.
Infact each time i log on it makes me view a high rated game. and all i see is suicide. pointless spitful ppl mindlessly trading pecies literally every time. untill they're both down to i duno 2 pecies and 5 pawns each.
Why are these ppl being admired, promoted and displayed as somone ur suposed to gain experience from watching?
I have been playing chess for some time now for fun, no tournaments or i duno compotitions with trophys or cash or what not. simply fun. and i noticed soon after making my account i was not a fan of 5 min games. Why?
I found my opponents most of the time were suicidal, they didnt care where they moved or why, infact it was more like i was playing time than them. i was put into a rediculus sittuation. instead of trying to think up a plan to capture or annialiate my opponent i found i was thinking up a plan to stop them kill themselves. now i dont find that fun and i dont belive with each peace having its own unique ways of movement this was how the game was ment to be played.
Yet as i said earlier each time i log on im viewing high rated ppl (who probly farmed these 5 min or less suicidal games.
Honestly ive probly resigned more games than ive played due to this, i find no fun in playign a spitful suicidal cowardly opponent in any game.
ITs not only here either ive noticed tutorials promoting mindless trade, ppl ranting on and on about stratergies asthough its actually stratergy and when it gets down to it its suicide missions. I dont understand how this has become the norm (because it looks that way to me)
So yes im currious am i only in thinking this way?
If further explanation is needed i will give but yeah.
i've noticed this too,
you're not the only one that feels this way,
be nice if we could get an answer instead of all the off-topic rubbish.
Find an opening or variation that avoids this. If they want to trade force them to trade your piece that can not do much for theirs that has options. This will come to an end soon if you win say 5 games straight as they must be looking at your games to be able to predict your moves.
i dont understand what ur sudgesting and why
well... yes, I'm fine, thank you. No problems whatsoever. Though this might not be the right place for such a confession Bishop
Out of all the possible positions in a chess game, an "open" position where Bishops are more valuable than Knights arises about 80% of the time. Therefore, Bishops are better than Knights, not just depending on a position (as the pro-Knight lobby has been pushing for decades), but in the absolute.
The bishops' value is even magnified by the "bishop pair." Knights have no such magnifier.
Also, The Queen is worth two Rooks, and perhaps more, as long as there is at least one minor piece on the Queen's side, as there usually is in the middlegame and opening. This formula of the Queen + 1 being worth two Rooks is more geared toward the Endgame, where the board likely is denuded of pieces.
Also, the pawns are not all equal. Center pawns are worth like 1.25 points wheras Rook-pawns are more like 0.72. The White King-pawn is worth 1.31.
So this is the true piece value:
Pawn: 1.18
Knight: 2.9
Bishop: 4.6
Rook: 5.25
Queen: 11
King: 4.8
i dont belive this my left hand is more vaulable than my right hand talk is relevant
as i tried to explain in the first post and several times after
im talking about trade
not sacrafice - sacrafice sudgest a point
also i disagree bishops are worth more than knights
i belive rooks are worth more than bishops or knights due to the ability to castle
however knights and bishops. two pecies with two unique versions of movment i dont belive personally there is a need to view one as more than the other. and if i did.
The ability to jump over pecies surly counts as a second bonus as a rooks ability to castle however i still overall disagree.
Out of all the possible positions in a chess game, an "open" position where Bishops are more valuable than Knights arises about 80% of the time. Therefore, Bishops are better than Knights, not just depending on a position (as the pro-Knight lobby has been pushing for decades), but in the absolute.
The bishops' value is even magnified by the "bishop pair." Knights have no such magnifier.
Also, The Queen is worth two Rooks, and perhaps more, as long as there is at least one minor piece on the Queen's side, as there usually is in the middlegame and opening. This formula of the Queen + 1 being worth two Rooks is more geared toward the Endgame, where the board likely is denuded of pieces.
Also, the pawns are not all equal. Center pawns are worth like 1.25 points wheras Rook-pawns are more like 0.72. The White King-pawn is worth 1.31.
So this is the true piece value:
Pawn: 1.18
Knight: 2.9
Bishop: 4.6
Rook: 5.25
Queen: 11
King: 4.8
You're evaluation of piece worth is severely misguided. Bishops and knights should be about equal at 3.25 pawns. In no way is one bishop worth 4.6, that is almost a whole rook according to your system. True, the bishop pair is a distinct advantage, but is worth about half a pawn.
The system advocated by chess.com's own national master dan heisman (who i have learned quite a lot from) and much of the educated chess world is as follows:
pawn: 1
bishop and knight: 3.25
rook: 5
queen: 9.75
bishop pair: 7
I cannot speak to your so called pawn "evaluation", but based on the absurdity of your bishop and knight evaluation I hardly doubt it holds real ground. I invite you to show us where you got these numbers from. It appears as though your rating system is based on little but your own misconceptions.
Want proof on value.
I have to say this guy is crazy. Talking about Carlsen. I was going into some of his games where he played some openings and he played like he wanted revenge in some of them. By theory his opponent had several pieces and so did he. But his opponent had the higher value piece (not Q). And he still tuned his opponet rear. As i looked at the game my lip dropped. I know he was playing the Sicilian.
I thought the guy was over rated until i saw some of those games. So take a look at them. He worked those Minor pieces around the Rook and and other piece like a Pro vs a Rookie. As i was watching the moves being played out i forgot that he had won. But at the moment i said he was going down and hard.
His opponent having Nightmares would be a blessing they must have daymares. Getting beat like that when theory and point wise says you have the advantage.
The talk about bishop vs. knight is completely absurd. I do not pretend to understand exactly how a piece's position affects its value, as that is a murky area of chess, but the value is ENTIRELY dependent on position. This is well established and anyone who disagrees should read a basic chess book.
In reference to Imperfect_Luck's posts about trading, while it is a difficult concept to grasp for beginners (judging from his play, he is the epitomy of a beginner). Mindlessly trading is a fool's errand, but so is keeping all the pieces on the board. There are a few simple guidelines every beginner should know
1. Trade when you have a space disadvantage, and vice versa (avoid trading when you have a spacial advantage)
2. Trade when you are up in material (more pieces on the board can create complications, and complications always favor the losing side)
3. Trade when there is too much pressure mounting on a specific part of the board. Liquidate to release tension.
I refer you to Aron Nimsowitch's My System, which I believe features a chapter on trading.
Although it is entirely possible that these cries will fall on deaf ears, as first he needs to address a number of different issues; namely opening principles (the parham? really?), development, activity, and correctly executing an attack. One cannot begin to grasp the complexities of chess without first addressing these concepts.
@ royalbishop
Carlsen demonstrates extraordinary endgame play, quite fitting seeing as how he is poor in the opening. He seemingly creates complex positions out of thin air and has a flair for endgame theatrics.
Knights vs Bishop has be done already.
The value is determined by position.
If the Bishop is stuck behind its ownpawns then it has the say value as a pawn and even more useless. That is just one way the value of a Bishop is worth nothing.
Take for example your king is under fire. The only pieces of any value are the ones that can defend the king at the moment and you can have a Queen, 2R, 2B and 2N vs your opponent Queen, 1R, 1B, 1N. And your opponent is threating to mate.
listen to urself
and my discription of sacrifice
i said sacrifice sudgest a point
implying trade does not
ur 3 examples were follow by a point
meaning ur getting something out of it right?
as for ur ' convinced your only purpose here is to antagonize
your the one chasing up the play history on this account as amo for ur insults before u even start reffering to the topic
despite me commenting on this act several times earlier and pointing out the should be obvious you dont even know i played those games no i belive u sir are the one attempting to antagonize me.
but hey
u wanan belive i made the post for ppl to not be on topic
ppl to chase up play history on this account
and earlier have ppl say racsist things towards me
what can i say
on topic pls
The only thing that really counts is mate. Many players have been up in material to witness they get crushed in a series of sacrifices leading to mate.
Please good sir, it is spelled sacrifice
Where did I even begin to address the issue of sacrifices? If you took the time to read my post (clearly you didn't) you would notice that all 3 points deal with trading. I am now convinced you're only purpose here is to antagonize.
This is surely one of the best things in the Internet this year, and I want to be a part of it!
Imperfect_Luck: Could you show us a game of yours and specify the exact move where your opponent made the cowardly and pointless act of trading pieces? That would help you get some comments on topic.
Please good sir, it is spelled sacrifice
Where did I even begin to address the issue of sacrifices? If you took the time to read my post (clearly you didn't) you would notice that all 3 points deal with trading. I am now convinced you're only purpose here is to antagonzie.
listen to urself
and my discription of sacrifice
i said sacrifice sudgest a point
implying trade does not
ur 3 examples were follow by a point
meaning ur getting something out of it right?
as for ur ' convinced your only purpose here is to antagonize
your the one chasing up the play history on this account as amo for ur insults before u even start reffering to the topic
despite me commenting on this act several times earlier and pointing out the should be obvious you dont even know i played those games no i belive u sir are the one attempting to antagonize me.
but hey
u wanan belive i made the post for ppl to not be on topic
ppl to chase up play history on this account
and earlier have ppl say racsist things towards me
what can i say
on topic pls
Imperfect_Luck
You don't understand, and your logic is completely flawed "a trade does not have a point"
Wrong. Wrong. As wrong as can be. Every single trade on the face of the chess planet serves a purpose, even if both players don't understand it. For instance, when you are saying it's "cowardly" to trade pieces, is that not a point in itself? Your opponent is seeking a simpler endgame. You can call this cowardice, but I call it preference. Perhaps he/she has more confidence at a simpler level. Either way, a point is expressed.
A player may trade, not sacrifice, trade for a piece that is too powerful (it is placed in a good position). He may trade to liquidate tension. These are trades in every sense of the word. To imply that a trade serves no purpose clearly demonstrates your level of chess knowledge.
I challenge you to show me any game you wish, where such trades occured. They all served a purpose, whether it was beneficial or not. Show me this game and these said "trades" and I can show you a purpose behind them.
This is surely one of the best things in the Internet this year, and I want to be a part of it!
Imperfect_Luck: Could you show us a game of yours and specify the exact move where your opponent made the cowardly and pointless act of trading pieces? That would help you get some comments on topic.
a trade (of equality) which after completion made no or minor changes to the positon of the board.
oh i duno
pawns at e4 and e5
queens at f3 and f6
queens trade
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to post a board of such a situation with the same zeal they seem to have when looking for ammo as insults.
however jiquero al u gotta do is log on and see some high rated game points (pecie points) even and they just running into each other fighting time.
Please good sir, it is spelled sacrifice
Where did I even begin to address the issue of sacrifices? If you took the time to read my post (clearly you didn't) you would notice that all 3 points deal with trading. I am now convinced you're only purpose here is to antagonzie.
Been online for 12+ hrs get a lawyer and get in line. I will get out on payroll for consecutive correct spelling of words later.
Ouch look who misspelled a word above "antagonzie" learn to spell as i am tired what is your excuse. ( antagonize )
who is the pot calling the kettle black now lol.
How are you red-lady on this day.
Are you as fine as your avatar red-lady?