I'm so proud, I've never had a thread make it to 4 pages before.
Can we all at least agree that a 'screw it' attitude has merit in chess?
Please?
Pretty Please?
Pretty Please with cherries on top?
The 'screw it' principle
Sort:
Clap clap clap ... if you get it from a naughty girl, it's crap crap crap.
Jun 12, 2014
0
#64
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kaynight wrote:
What ho, old boy....Wizard prang on the Jerries.
"never in the field of human conflict have so few done so much for so many"....Winston Churchill.."we will fight them on the beaches and in the air and in the fields and on the sea and we will never be defeated."
"we will never be defeated" was actually "we shall never surrender". The other part which is misquoted, was "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
So you have proved beyond question that you have a pedantic streak..This is an internet forum thread and not a university seminar on the life and times of Winston Churchill. Nonetheless thx for putting the record straight.
Pedantic streak? Fair comment, but I was not the one attempting the original quotes. I consider it reasonable to expect the person drawing on the material to get it right. Furthermore, I have never studied the life and times of Winston Churchill.
I got the spirit of the quotes exactly right which in my book is sufficient for this particular arena of discussion.
At the risk of speaking on-topic, I don't think that an all-or-nothing approach necessarily begets a favorable outcome: rather, it almost guarantees SOME outcome at a much more accelerated rate. One may be guilty of confirmation bias if you choose only to observe the Romantics or the fire-on-the-board works of Tal, Nezhmetdinov, etc.
An all-or-nothing approach may bring about a successful attack in great haste, but it can also quickly procure attacks which fizzle out. In fact, I have quite a few correspondence victories in which my opponent presses much too hard for an initiative only to find himself/herself down a minor piece with no compensation. All-or-nothing is just that: all (victory), or nothing (defeat).
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kaynight wrote:
What ho, old boy....Wizard prang on the Jerries.
"never in the field of human conflict have so few done so much for so many"....Winston Churchill.."we will fight them on the beaches and in the air and in the fields and on the sea and we will never be defeated."
"we will never be defeated" was actually "we shall never surrender". The other part which is misquoted, was "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
So you have proved beyond question that you have a pedantic streak..This is an internet forum thread and not a university seminar on the life and times of Winston Churchill. Nonetheless thx for putting the record straight.
Pedantic streak? Fair comment, but I was not the one attempting the original quotes. I consider it reasonable to expect the person drawing on the material to get it right. Furthermore, I have never studied the life and times of Winston Churchill.
I got the spirit of the quotes exactly right which in my book is sufficient for this particular arena of discussion.
In my book, inverted commas indicate an actual quote, not the gist or "spirit" of what was said. In any case, "we will never be defeated" is not the spirit of what Churchill said. ("We shall never surrender" does not mean the same.) Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but when I was a child, this stuff was elementary and known by everybody around me.
Didn't Churchill talk about fighting from Canada if they had too?
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
Winston Churchill ?? While the hans dynasty united the waring clans, the Chin dynasty wasn't so considerate. I have 5 lectures today, and While I'm just an adjunct professor here on chess.com, it is not my job to know everything. The Golden Age!
Ronald please reread your Chinese history
Jun 12, 2014
0
#69
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kaynight wrote:
What ho, old boy....Wizard prang on the Jerries.
"never in the field of human conflict have so few done so much for so many"....Winston Churchill.."we will fight them on the beaches and in the air and in the fields and on the sea and we will never be defeated."
"we will never be defeated" was actually "we shall never surrender". The other part which is misquoted, was "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
So you have proved beyond question that you have a pedantic streak..This is an internet forum thread and not a university seminar on the life and times of Winston Churchill. Nonetheless thx for putting the record straight.
Pedantic streak? Fair comment, but I was not the one attempting the original quotes. I consider it reasonable to expect the person drawing on the material to get it right. Furthermore, I have never studied the life and times of Winston Churchill.
I got the spirit of the quotes exactly right which in my book is sufficient for this particular arena of discussion.
In my book, inverted commas indicate an actual quote, not the gist or "spirit" of what was said. In any case, "we will never be defeated" is not the spirit of what Churchill said. ("We shall never surrender" does not mean the same.) Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but when I was a child, this stuff was elementary and known by everybody around me.
I thanked you earlier for putting the reord straight and right now I'm not reallly in the mood for semantics so I suggest we call it quits.
BH154070 wrote:
At the risk of speaking on-topic, I don't think that an all-or-nothing approach necessarily begets a favorable outcome: rather, it almost guarantees SOME outcome at a much more accelerated rate. One may be guilty of confirmation bias if you choose only to observe the Romantics or the fire-on-the-board works of Tal, Nezhmetdinov, etc.
An all-or-nothing approach may bring about a successful attack in great haste, but it can also quickly procure attacks which fizzle out. In fact, I have quite a few correspondence victories in which my opponent presses much too hard for an initiative only to find himself/herself down a minor piece with no compensation. All-or-nothing is just that: all (victory), or nothing (defeat).
This guy is correct. If I had anything good to add to his idea I would.
if you really think that a "screw it attitude" is why GM's win then your mind must really love oversimplification.
I do believe that this sort of an attitude is great for learning.
I would also bet that every GM has played with this aproach at least a few times long before they were a GM.
no one gets a 2500 rating (a measure of expected win and draw percentage) by saying "well screw it I hope there is compensation"
Jun 12, 2014
0
#71
I agree....but !....those top players still speculate and they're using their instincts to decide on their next move.
Winston Churhill, FDR after Pearl Harbor,George Bush after 9/11, John Kennedy's inauguration speech. Lincoln's Geteysburg Address. The're all pretty dam good.
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about speeches. Am I in the wrong thread?? Pardon me, coming through, make a hole, how are you ladies, where's the exit ?
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
I wouldn't call Dunkirk withstanding the might of Hitler's forces in 1940. The only reason Britain might not have won the Battle of Britain was the worrying shortage of trained fighter pilots. Everything else was in the RAF's favour. They were fighting over their own territory, so had no fuel shortage worries. The Spitfire and Hurricane were better than their German rivals in armaments, maximum atltitude and speed. The German fighters had to fly from France usually and did not have the fuel to stay long enough to protect the bombers. The bombers were of the light duty fighter type, which could not carry a large payload. They did damage, but never enough. At the height of the battle, Britain was manufacturing fighter aircraft at twice the rate of Germany. The Luftwaffe's losses during the course of the battle massively outstripped those of the RAF.
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kleelof wrote:
And in England when they fought the Nazis.
Where would the world be without Britain ..by winning the Battle of Britain the Nazis were kept at bay and could not invade British shores . In 1944 the allies launched their own invasion of continental Europe from British shores and with the help of the Soviets in the east defeated the evil that was Nazi Germany.
Are we not forgetting the fact that the large majority of forces who landed in Normandy on D-day and fought their way through Europe to Germany were Americans?
Yes the Americans did some great fighting in WW2 but the allied invasion of Europe could not have happened had Britain not stood firm as it withstood the might of Hitler's forces on its own in 1940.
Yes, Britain stood alone for a while, but she had a pretty good hand to play.
Yes forget the bloody Poles!
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kaynight wrote:
What ho, old boy....Wizard prang on the Jerries.
"never in the field of human conflict have so few done so much for so many"....Winston Churchill.."we will fight them on the beaches and in the air and in the fields and on the sea and we will never be defeated."
"we will never be defeated" was actually "we shall never surrender". The other part which is misquoted, was "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
So you have proved beyond question that you have a pedantic streak..This is an internet forum thread and not a university seminar on the life and times of Winston Churchill. Nonetheless thx for putting the record straight.
Pedantic streak? Fair comment, but I was not the one attempting the original quotes. I consider it reasonable to expect the person drawing on the material to get it right. Furthermore, I have never studied the life and times of Winston Churchill.
I got the spirit of the quotes exactly right which in my book is sufficient for this particular arena of discussion.
In my book, inverted commas indicate an actual quote, not the gist or "spirit" of what was said. In any case, "we will never be defeated" is not the spirit of what Churchill said. ("We shall never surrender" does not mean the same.) Yes, I know I'm being pedantic, but when I was a child, this stuff was elementary and known by everybody around me.
I thanked you earlier for putting the reord straight and right now I'm not reallly in the mood for semantics so I suggest we call it quits.
Agreed.
Jun 12, 2014
0
#76
Pastuszek wrote:
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
I wouldn't call Dunkirk withstanding the might of Hitler's forces in 1940. The only reason Britain might not have won the Battle of Britain was the worrying shortage of trained fighter pilots. Everything else was in the RAF's favour. They were fighting over their own territory, so had no fuel shortage worries. The Spitfire and Hurricane were better than their German rivals in armaments, maximum atltitude and speed. The German fighters had to fly from France usually and did not have the fuel to stay long enough to protect the bombers. The bombers were of the light duty fighter type, which could not carry a large payload. They did damage, but never enough. At the height of the battle, Britain was manufacturing fighter aircraft at twice the rate of Germany. The Luftwaffe's losses during the course of the battle massively outstripped those of the RAF.
RG1951 wrote:
trotters64 wrote:
kleelof wrote:
And in England when they fought the Nazis.
Where would the world be without Britain ..by winning the Battle of Britain the Nazis were kept at bay and could not invade British shores . In 1944 the allies launched their own invasion of continental Europe from British shores and with the help of the Soviets in the east defeated the evil that was Nazi Germany.
Are we not forgetting the fact that the large majority of forces who landed in Normandy on D-day and fought their way through Europe to Germany were Americans?
Yes the Americans did some great fighting in WW2 but the allied invasion of Europe could not have happened had Britain not stood firm as it withstood the might of Hitler's forces on its own in 1940.
Yes, Britain stood alone for a while, but she had a pretty good hand to play.
Yes forget the bloody Poles!
The Polish people fought very nobly in WW2 and by all accounts the RAF had more than a few ace Polish pilots. It's a great shame that events transpired for the Polish nation as they did upon the conclusion of the war.
What ho, old boy....Wizard prang on the Jerries.
"never in the field of human conflict have so few done so much for so many"....Winston Churchill.."we will fight them on the beaches and in the air and in the fields and on the sea and we will never be defeated."
"we will never be defeated" was actually "we shall never surrender". The other part which is misquoted, was "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few".
So you have proved beyond question that you have a pedantic streak..This is an internet forum thread and not a university seminar on the life and times of Winston Churchill. Nonetheless thx for putting the record straight.
Pedantic streak? Fair comment, but I was not the one attempting the original quotes. I consider it reasonable to expect the person drawing on the material to get it right. Furthermore, I have never studied the life and times of Winston Churchill.