BorgQueen wrote:
Of course. It is implied by what I have said in the past as well.
but you said in the past borg was opposite to my thought right?.ill wait again borg.
who's the clown?
Sort:
BorgQueen wrote:
Depends on the game. If it is a highly tactical game, then positional skills don't help all that much and if it is a highly positional game, tactical skills don't help all that much either, but they help more than the the first scenario.
i forgot to ask you this borg.
you said here that it depends on the game right?.ok,let say that BF is really a tactician,so my question is ''could BF can make the game tactical until the end of the game,so that he can get an advantage and win the game''?.ill wait again borg.
BorgQueen wrote:
Wanna refer me to where I have said the opposite?
your answered my question in your post 111,and i answered it in my post 112,and you answered me in your post 113,then i answered you in my post 114.
BorgQueen wrote:
akintews wrote:
Hey borg i have a question does the Strategic Air Command drop tactical nukes i await your response
In my view, nukes are not tactical at all.
Another way I could answer this is like so: Since good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics, it is quite logical that a strategic group (SAC) would employ tactics to forward the development of their strategy.
taots_11 wrote:
i know that you speculate a little here borg.
but,ooppsss,wait a minute borg,you said that tactician is better that positional player in your 105 post right?,so did you mean that BF is better than GK in your post here?.
No, you are leaping to assumptions. I said no such thing in post 105. Paraphrasing, I said that a purely tactical plyaer would dominate a purely positional player.
But GK is also a great tactician and I dare say that BF is a good positional player. Very different things.
taots_11 wrote:
hi borg i have a two questions to you again.
1.i think akintews have a point in his 106 post borg,i mean it is a strategic air command so it should drop a strategic nukes not a tactical nukes right?. so could you answer his question?.
2.i read your profile,and i find out that you are a software developer.i watch the movie terminator 3,and the leading actor said that the skynet(a virus in a computer) are in the software that already scatterd around the world and cannot be shotdown.so my question is ''is it true that it cannot be shotdown if the virus are already put in the software and you send it already around the world''?.
1. How about you actually wait for me to respond before asking the same question again. Patience is a virtue.
2. Again, movies are your primary source of understanding? I hate to think where this might lead you. No. A virus can be removed once it's identified... no matter what. At the very worst a lot of systems would have to be shut down and re-booted, but that's as easy as pressing a button or two.
ok,again,borg.
you said here above that ''since good strategy is subcomponent of tactics right''?.
so for me that is wrong,because all i thought and all i know is ''tactics is subcomponent of strategy'' not strategy is subcomponent of tactics.
thats why i said that it is opposite to my thought.
so my question is ''is my thought is wrong or not?.
BorgQueen wrote:
taots_11 wrote:
BorgQueen wrote:
Depends on the game. If it is a highly tactical game, then positional skills don't help all that much and if it is a highly positional game, tactical skills don't help all that much either, but they help more than the the first scenario.
i forgot to ask you this borg.
you said here that it depends on the game right?.ok,let say that BF is really a tactician,so my question is ''could BF can make the game tactical until the end of the game,so that he can get an advantage and win the game''?.ill wait again borg.
I don't know. Somehow I suspect that BF wouldn't get tactical hits until the position warrants it. IMO tactics are born out of good positions... you can't just make tactics from positions which are bad. So positional chess may reign... eg in the King's Gambit, it can go highly tactical if black takes the pawn, but it can still go positional if black refuses the pawn!
I'm no master though, so this is kinda entering an area where I cannot claim any real insight.
thanks borg,i have a question again to you.
i think this was what GK said about AK(anatoly karpov) when he got interview by google,that if he is a crocodile and AK is a bear,he should make the game like a lake so that he can get an advantage.but if he is a bear he should make the game like a land so that he can get an advantage.is this make sense to you borg?.ill wait again borg.
BorgQueen wrote:
taots_11 wrote:
BorgQueen wrote:
In my view, nukes are not tactical at all.
Another way I could answer this is like so: Since good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics, it is quite logical that a strategic group (SAC) would employ tactics to forward the development of their strategy.
ok,again,borg.
you said here above that ''since good strategy is subcomponent of tactics right''?.
so for me that is wrong,because all i thought and all i know is ''tactics is subcomponent of strategy'' not strategy is subcomponent of tactics.
thats why i said that it is opposite to my thought.
so my question is ''is my thought is wrong or not?.
Wrong.
I did NOT say that "good strategy is a subcomponent of tactics". I said that "good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics".
You must learn to read and not jump to assumptions or conclusions!
oh! sorry borg,i didnt notice the word ''involves'',i think i read it too fast,my bad.
BorgQueen wrote:
taots_11 wrote:
BorgQueen wrote:
In my view, nukes are not tactical at all.
Another way I could answer this is like so: Since good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics, it is quite logical that a strategic group (SAC) would employ tactics to forward the development of their strategy.
ok,again,borg.
you said here above that ''since good strategy is subcomponent of tactics right''?.
so for me that is wrong,because all i thought and all i know is ''tactics is subcomponent of strategy'' not strategy is subcomponent of tactics.
thats why i said that it is opposite to my thought.
so my question is ''is my thought is wrong or not?.
Wrong.
I did NOT say that "good strategy is a subcomponent of tactics". I said that "good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics".
You must learn to read and not jump to assumptions or conclusions!
hi borg,i have to ask you this a long time ago,so that i can understand it right away.
using the word STRATEGIC in the sentence.
1.my strategic position is weak.
using the word STRATEGY in the same sentence.
2.my strategy of positioning is weak.
so my question is ''are the two sentences is the same meaning''?.
ill wait again borg.
BorgQueen wrote:
Not quite... but almost.
1. My strategic positioning is weak
2. My strategy of positioning is weak
These mean the same.
In your number 1, you are saying your position is weak -- your strategy may be fine where in number 2 you are saying your strategy is weak -- your position may be fine.
thanks borg.
so,could you give me a right sentence using the word STRATEGY, so that it will be the same meaning to my number 1 sentence?.
BorgQueen wrote:
1.my strategic position is weak.
2. My strategy based position is weak.
Something like that.
thanks borg,but i still have a 2 questions in this:
1.what do you mean the word BASED in your sentence above?.
2.how about if i take out the word WEAK in my sentence above?
for example: my strategic position.
so,can you give me a right sentence using the word STRATEGY again,so that it will become the same meaning again?.
BorgQueen wrote:
Because "strategic" is an adjective and strategy is a noun, there is no simple way to do it.
"Strategic position" refers to the position being of a strategic nature.
To remove the adjective it becomes simply "position".
To then add "strategy" to give the same meaning, I would use:
"Strategy based position".
Why are you trying so hard to use a noun when an adjective works??!
thanks borg.
1.first of all,you forgot to answer my #1 question.
2.first of all again,i know that an adjectives will works borg.the reason why i trying to use a noun when an adjectives works,is because i want to know if i can use a noun instead of an adjective in the sentence,but it must be still the same meaning.lets say i want to become a writer,and i dont want to use the word STRATEGIC in my story over and over again,because i dont want the readers to get bored to read my story.
BorgQueen wrote:
Actually, I think I did a pretty good job of answering question 1.
What do you think "based" means?
Since you have failed to understand the basics of "strategic" vs "strategy" in over 2 years of explanations, I would say you are ill-equipped to be a writer... at least in English anyway ;-)
If your story involves stating "strategy/strategic" so many times that the reader would be bored of it, then I would that your story lacks depth.
You haven't got a lof of the language under control yet. You cannot say "first of all" twice and just chuck "again" at the end of the second one. "First of all again" makes absolutely zero sense. It should be "First of all..." followed by "Secondly...".
You have also failed to use even basic grammar syntax -- capital letters, missing spaces after commas, missing spaces after full stops, missing apostrophes... just to name a few.
thanks borg.
1.i think the meaning of the word BASE is ''foundation'' borg,after i look it up in the dictionary.so,am i right or wrong?.
2.LOL,im sorry if i ask you a lot of questions all over the years borg,maybe my words ''first of all '' had got to offend you right?,but i dont mean it.yeah, i think maybe im just gonna quit asking you a questions and be quiet until the rest of my life,and dont do anything like a lazy numb person?.
BorgQueen wrote:
1. There ya go! You can do it!
2. lol no you didn't offend me at all ... I just found it quite amusing that you said you wanted to be a writer...
thanks borg.
1.you mean im right that the word ''foundation'' is the meaning of the word ''base'' borg?
.so,if im right borg,is this means that i can say ''strategy foundation position''?.ill wait again borg.
2.im glad that i didnt offend you borg.i think i forgot to add the words ''just for example'' in my sentence,so that you didnt got amazed,lol,because the truth is im really cant be a writer.
BorgQueen wrote:
1. No. But you could say "strategy founded position". "Base" would be the same as "foundation". "Based" would be the same as "founded".
2. I know. You need to work on more basic English principles before getting too bogged down in the semantics of one word grouping. It is abundantly clear that you cannot be a writer... which is why I was LOLing at the suggestion ^_^
thanks borg,i still have a last 2 questions on this.so,i want you to please bear me with this ok?,and i promise that i will never to ask you again about this,even i still dont get it,but you have to answer it in the best you can.
1.so,let say for example,if someone asking me like this ''what kind of position is that''?,while im playing chess,can i answer him or her like this ''a strategy founded position?.
if im right.
2.so,is this means that the words a ''strategy founded'' and the word ''strategic'' are the same meaning?.the reason i ask you this borg is,i think that they are both adjectives in my sentences a ''strategic position'' and the ''strategy founded position'',because they are both discribing what kind of position i have.
ok,i will follow your advise,that i have to study a ''basic english'' first borg.so my question is what im gonna start to study first?,do i have to study the noun,pronoun,verb,adjective or adverb etc.?or what?.ill wait again borg.
BorgQueen wrote:
I have to agree... "a strategy founded position" and "a strategic position" mean the same to me.
What should you study first? Grammar. Nouns, pronouns etc, I think you have a decent understand of already. Knowing where to put spaces and how to use commas and capital letters would be better imo, but I am not an English teacher!
thanks borg,i want to say sorry to you right away,because i think i have to break my promise.because i just pretend that i understand the meaning of word ''founded'',so i look up to the dictionary and find out that the meaning of the word ''founded'' is ''support''.so,im 100% pretty sure and i promise that im gonna stop asking you again about this topic after you answered this question.
1.so,my question is,can i say '' a strategy support position''?.
even you are not an English teacher borg,i will believed that all your advise to me is correct.i im glad that you believed to me,that i already understand a noun,pronoun,etc. borg.ok,i will study how to use the commas,spaces and capital letters then borg.
BorgQueen wrote:
No, "strategy support position" is just wrong.
"founded" does not mean "support". I don't know what dictionary you're using to make this assumption.
---
Capital letters at the beginning of sentences and paragraphs and for proper names.
Commas are followed by a space. Always.
Two spaces after a sentence.
Thanks Borg.
1.So,what is the meaning of the word ''Founded'' then?.
a.Ok,let me try again Borg. How about ''Strategy created position''?.
b.How about '' Strategy establish position''?.
c.How about ''Strategy set up position''?
So, which one is correct Borg, a,b or c ?. I'll wait again Borg.
Ok,i will follow your advise Borg.
[COMMENT DELETED]
BorgQueen wrote:
Neither a, b or c work for me.
The position has to have an underlying essence of strategy. That is what "strategic" means.
"Strategy based position" works. "Strategic position" works.
Why are you trying so hard to change it?
Thanks Borg.
I give up Borg. Because i dont know what is the meaning of ''underlying''.
But let me try for one last chance Borg. ''The position has to have a supporting essence of strategy''. So, Im i right or wrong Borg?.
And let me try this too.
You said before that im right when i find out that the meaning of ''Base'' is foundation right?. But i cant say ''A strategy foundation position'' because the foundation is a noun right borg?.So,your suggestion is i can say ''A strategy founded position because the word ''founded'' is a verb right?. I think i much understand the words ''A strategy foundation position'', But i know that its wrong, But i know too that the word ''foundation'' and the word ''founded'' are the same meaning, right Borg?. So, im i right or wrong?. Ill wait again borg.
No Borg. I dont want to change it, As i said before, I just want to know if i can used the word ''Strategy'' in the sentence, Instead of the word ''Strategic''.
Good game of mine Borg. I play white, My opponent play black.I think, I strategically position all my pieces, Thats why i win the game Borg. What do you think Borg?.
BorgQueen wrote:
taots_11 wrote:
I give up Borg. Because i dont know what is the meaning of ''underlying''.
I give up Borg. Because i dont know what is the meaning of ''underlying''.
But let me try for one last chance Borg. ''The position has to have a supporting essence of strategy''. So, Im i right or wrong Borg?.
Nothing to do with "supporting". The position has to have an essence of strategy" is ok.
This is the problem. How can you ever hope to understand the nuances of such things when you can't define what terms like "underlying" mean? Every time I try to explain it, you run into yet another word you don't understand. Therefore it is clearly more important to understand the more basic words than it is to understand every nuance of the phrases you are trying to examine.
taots_11 wrote
You said before that im right when i find out that the meaning of ''Base'' is foundation right?. But i cant say ''A strategy foundation position'' because the foundation is a noun right borg?.So,your suggestion is i can say ''A strategy founded position because the word ''founded'' is a verb right?. I think i much understand the words ''A strategy foundation position'', But i know that its wrong, But i know too that the word ''foundation'' and the word ''founded'' are the same meaning, right Borg?. So, im i right or wrong?. Ill wait again borg.
You said before that im right when i find out that the meaning of ''Base'' is foundation right?. But i cant say ''A strategy foundation position'' because the foundation is a noun right borg?.So,your suggestion is i can say ''A strategy founded position because the word ''founded'' is a verb right?. I think i much understand the words ''A strategy foundation position'', But i know that its wrong, But i know too that the word ''foundation'' and the word ''founded'' are the same meaning, right Borg?. So, im i right or wrong?. Ill wait again borg.
Foundation is a thing... a noun.
Founded is not.
"The building's foundation is a slab of concrete upon which the building, founded in 1985, is built".
Clearly, foundation and founded are NOT the same thing.
taots_11 wrote:
No Borg. I dont want to change it, As i said before, I just want to know if i can used the word ''Strategy'' in the sentence, Instead of the word ''Strategic''.
No Borg. I dont want to change it, As i said before, I just want to know if i can used the word ''Strategy'' in the sentence, Instead of the word ''Strategic''.
Not without restructuring the entire sentence.
Thanks Borg.
I think i finally got it Borg. The meaning of ''strategic position'' is ''a position base on strategy. So i'm right or wrong Borg?. I'll wait again Borg.
Hey borg i have a question does the Strategic Air Command drop tactical nukes i await your response
In my view, nukes are not tactical at all.
Another way I could answer this is like so: Since good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics, it is quite logical that a strategic group (SAC) would employ tactics to forward the development of their strategy.
i know that you speculate a little here borg.
but,ooppsss,wait a minute borg,you said that tactician is better that positional player in your 105 post right?,so did you mean that BF is better than GK in your post here?.
No, you are leaping to assumptions. I said no such thing in post 105. Paraphrasing, I said that a purely tactical plyaer would dominate a purely positional player.
But GK is also a great tactician and I dare say that BF is a good positional player. Very different things.
hi borg i have a two questions to you again.
1.i think akintews have a point in his 106 post borg,i mean it is a strategic air command so it should drop a strategic nukes not a tactical nukes right?. so could you answer his question?.
2.i read your profile,and i find out that you are a software developer.i watch the movie terminator 3,and the leading actor said that the skynet(a virus in a computer) are in the software that already scatterd around the world and cannot be shotdown.so my question is ''is it true that it cannot be shotdown if the virus are already put in the software and you send it already around the world''?.
1. How about you actually wait for me to respond before asking the same question again. Patience is a virtue.
2. Again, movies are your primary source of understanding? I hate to think where this might lead you. No. A virus can be removed once it's identified... no matter what. At the very worst a lot of systems would have to be shut down and re-booted, but that's as easy as pressing a button or two.
thanks borg.
but about the SAC borg,you said that ''since a good strategy involves a subcomponent of tactics right''?.i thought that tactics is a subcomponent of strategy,because strategy is much broader than tactics?,so my question is ''is my thought is right or wrong''?.ill wait again borg.