26 May 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI'm neither a soldier nor a nurse, though I respect both professions. I can imagine you bellowing that at a group of kids, though, and getting off on it.
Agree with your opening sentence. Your second sentence suggests tiddlywinks, spin the bottle or weekly lottery tickets (none of which qualify for various though nebulous reasons). Third sentence seems to convey 'the nature of competition and winning or losing'. You prefer bludgeoning? Fourth intrudes Harvard precious, 'particularly friendly'. Conversati ...[text shortened]... ning with the phrase, "... and implicit cruelty are creepy." You a soldier or a nursemaid?
Working on an opponent's paranoia and breaking them down works in politics and war, but I don't find it an acceptable strategy in ordinary games. Poor sportsmanship. At championship level things are arguably different, but I prefer not to attack my opponent psychologically purely to win a game.
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAs always, Bosse, respect your right to hold tenaciously to any and all opinions
I'm neither a soldier nor a nurse, though I respect both professions. I can imagine you bellowing that at a group of kids, though, and getting off on it.
Working on an opponent's paranoia and breaking them down works in politics and war, but I don't find it an acceptable strategy in ordinary games. Poor sportsmanship. At championship level things a ...[text shortened]... uably different, but I prefer not to attack my opponent psychologically purely to win a game.
contrary to my own. Red Hot Pawn Forums are all about honest give and take.
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyAnd so the conversation ended: not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a pettifogging demurral.
As always, Bosse, respect your right to hold tenaciously to any and all opinions
contrary to my own. Red Hot Pawn Forums are all about honest give and take.
26 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageUnfamiliar with the esoteric phrase. Sure glad you posted it, though, instead of gb. Probably should have taken the time to illustrate the overlooked/underrated strategy of 'breaking an opponent's will'. In chess games with accomplished players I've learned to avoid playing to their strength, erecting hedgerow and similar non-committal defenses, getting out of book early and often, maintaining pawn chain integrity in the hope of lasting twenty plus moves and possibly provoking overly aggressive/lightfoot attacks born of impatience, if not frustration. Mixed results but more than a few draws against players rated much higher than I'll ever be. Opinion expressed regarding 'breaking an opponent's will' depends on objectivity, realism, patience, restraint, nuance, practical uncommon sense. Of course nothing whatever to do with childish delays, devious ploys or distracting conversation.
And so the conversation ended: not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a pettifogging demurral.
26 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSimple illustration of "An obvious yet incredibly underrated strategy appears to be the concentrated focus on breaking an opponent's will to fight, by gradually seizing opportunities to increase the range of your opponent's paranoia..." (unrelated to chess but rather to tranquility of soul) might focus on something as personal as a confident/relaxed attitude: instinctively absorbing the road bumps, blindside reversals, random hits and frontal crap; staying on your game, giving benefit of doubt, forgiving/forgetting, routinely letting stuff go and moving on. Gotta give the bible credit for at least getting three absolute principles correct: wars and rumors of war until I come; the poor you shall have with you always; a quiet answer (frustates and) turns away wrath.
In a manner of speaking, I would say 'yes' to this question. Now, I am taking 'high-spirited conversation' to mean two equally forceful presentations of diametrically opposed positions of a topic. In the exchange of ideas, there exists an inherent challenge to perceptions held and--- invariably--- one walks away either stronger in their conviction, or no ...[text shortened]... e away sharper, but it is on the level of the ideas where the battle was either won or lost.
26 May 10
Originally posted by duecerSympathies and condolences extended to you and your family, Duecer. Cheer up. Take heart. You're not alone.
this thread makes me feel like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Wp8_LJLpKhU/SwHSx9TSrSI/AAAAAAAAAOM/NS5pSPSCJ1Q/s400/sad-faces04.jpg
Every mother's child on earth is imprisoned within the solitary confinement of his or her own mortal skin for life.
😉
26 May 10
Originally posted by darvlayIt absolutely does hold true. I think the unthinkable about You-know-Who all the time, always wanting to consider that I overlooked something, and that forum is a great source of any manner of thoughts along those lines. Not sure if you recall the story, but there was an ancient prophet who challenged the locals to a fire contest: whichever of the gods responded with fire would be considered the true One. So the locals did all of their voodoo, circle-dancing, frog-stomping and whatnot. Nada. Next up!
I'm curious: Does this hold true for the lively discussions held in the Spirituality forum? Have you ever walked away from a discussion there feeling open to that which was previously unthinkable?
The old prophet told them to go out and bring back some water--- buckets and buckets of water. Told them to soak the altar triply through and through, to which they happily obliged: power was at stake and they needed their candidate to be no less incompetent than the challenger. Properly soaked, the old prophet prayed to his god and revealed the true You-know-Who when the fire consumed the sacrifice, the water-soaked altar, the stones, the dirt, the water in the trench.
I'm of the mindset that I want things to be impossible for my position to be true. I want all manner of negation to soak into the very molecules of each fiber, to make it "incredibly implausible" that my conclusion could be anything but wrong. I am a sucker for the underdog, and You-know-Who is a stud among duds in this field.
26 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAncient literature's full of stories. In Homer, the gods appear on Earth. In the Bible, priests fight magical duels. Elsewhere, a crow creates the earth. Why believe any of them literally?
It absolutely does hold true. I think the unthinkable about You-know-Who all the time, always wanting to consider that I overlooked something, and that forum is a great source of any manner of thoughts along those lines. Not sure if you recall the story, but there was an ancient prophet who challenged the locals to a fire contest: whichever of the gods r ...[text shortened]... wrong. I am a sucker for the underdog, and You-know-Who is a stud among duds in this field.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 04
- Moves
- 186394
26 May 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageHey if a crow can (and does) create a mess on my pool deck it's not a leap to believe it can create whatever it wants.
Ancient literature's full of stories. In Homer, the gods appear on Earth. In the Bible, priests fight magical duels. Elsewhere, a crow creates the earth. Why believe any of them literally?