Cludi Deciding to Leave

Originally posted by tomtom232
Yes...lasker left out the part about sacrificing in his definition and Botvinnik added the sacrificing part to it...I won't go rooting up the actual quotes but I am pretty sure on this...at least they weren't completely backwards of each other. 😛

So in Laskers opinion combination is possible without sacrifice, but Botvinnik was sure that combination is impossible without sacrifice. Is it called "they weren't completely backwards of each other"? 😀

Originally posted by Korch
So in Laskers opinion combination is possible without sacrifice, but Botvinnik was sure that combination is impossible without sacrifice. Is it called "they weren't completely backwards of each other"? 😀

Backwards would be saying that a combination is the long term plan on the board 😛

Originally posted by tomtom232
Backwards would be saying that a combination is the long term plan on the board 😛

If we are taking into account that result of combination may have long term strategic consequences then that definition does not seem so absurd 😉

P.S. I would advice you to read Nimzowitch - his definition of combination is very original.

P.P.S. I`m pretty sure that if that text would be written of Everyday, then you would add this to your "evidence" 😀

Originally posted by Korch
If we are taking into account that combination may have long term strategic aim then that definition does not seem so absurd 😉

P.S. I would advice you to read Nimzowitch - his definition of combination is very original

except that the combination itself isn't the long term plan, the combination is only the forced sequence of moves after a sacrifice that bring about the desired position..whether the combination was for a long term strategic aim or a short term tactical aim, that doesn't make the combination those things...the combination is only the combination. 😉

Originally posted by tomtom232
except that the combination itself isn't the long term plan, the combination is only the forced sequence of moves after a sacrifice that bring about the desired position..whether the combination was for a long term strategic aim or a short term tactical aim, that doesn't make the combination those things...the combination is only the combination. 😉

1) Combination may be without sacrifice - Botvinnik`s definition is too narrow.
2) "Forced sequence of moves" is also narrow (and primitive) definition - in many combinations there are more than one forced (and correct) reply to move starting combination.
3) "the combination is only the combination" is the most precise definition 😀

So as you can see there is possible more than one "only right and correct" definition.

Originally posted by Korch
If we are taking into account that result of combination may have long term strategic consequences then that definition does not seem so absurd 😉

P.S. I would advice you to read Nimzowitch - his definition of combination is very original.

P.P.S. I`m pretty sure that if that text would be written of Everyday, then you would add this to your "evidence" 😀

well if you wanna be sarcastic include Tartakower´s quotes too ...

i agree with the following definition:
" a tactic refers to a short sequence of moves which limits the opponent's options and results in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted to strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less constrained in responding. The fundamental building blocks of tactics are two-move sequences in which the first move poses a double threat. This includes forks, skewers, discovered attacks, x-ray attacks, undermining, overloading, and interference. Pins also fall into this category to some extent ..."
"Often tactics of several types are conjoined in a combination. A combination, while still constraining the opponent's responses, takes several moves to obtain an advantage, and thus is considered deeper and more spectacular than the basic tactics listed above."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_tactics

again , what did your famous fellow write ?

Everyday on 21 Apr '07 18:20 Thread 67133
page 4:

" About tactics... Someone has serious problems with defining things. It might be me... But for me a combination that wins material is not tactics. Tactics is when you sacrifice something for your long term plans without instant material regain. "

and again, basic chess words in hungarian and english are quite similar ...

( the end )
😞

Originally posted by Korch
It depends on opposition - if you would look at his games then you would see that about 90% of them are against much weaker opposition. And as I have pointed out before - against weaker opposition its no problem to play quickly and win.

a brief list of " top " banned players and the average move per day:

Iroman31: 66,36 moves each day
yozzer: 81,25
exy: 93,86
humper: 92,04
fkcallie: 55,27
biaze: 40,45

Originally posted by zintieriv
well if you wanna be sarcastic include Tartakower´s quotes too ...

i agree with the following definition:
" a tactic refers to a short sequence of moves which limits the opponent's options and results in tangible gain. Tactics are usually contrasted to strategy, in which advantages take longer to be realized, and the opponent is less constrained in res ...[text shortened]... , basic chess words in hungarian and english are quite similar ...

( the end )
😞

I will repeat - if his definition differs from your "only one correct" definition it does not mean that he is not informed about your "only one correct" definition.

Also you contradict yourself saying "when i said he was a patzer ?" and at the same time trying to prove that he lacks elementar chess knowledge.

Originally posted by zintieriv
a brief list of " top " banned players and the average move per day:

Iroman31: 66,36 moves each day
yozzer: 81,25
exy: 93,86
humper: 92,04
fkcallie: 55,27
biaze: 40,45

These numbers means nothing without comparing average rating of their opposition.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This post proves nothing...I have known at least a couple people personally who I didn't know cheated until they were caught. Proof is all that can be used in this instance...because there is the possibility that you are EveRyDay(just an example).

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There are more than one people in this site who have verified that I`m genuine chess player and not cheater (see Thread 88786), but it did not stopped your clan leader in his accusations against me 😛

Originally posted by Korch
There are more than one people in this site who have verified that I`m genuine chess player and not cheater (see Thread 88786), but it did not stopped your clan leader in his accusations against me 😛

Oh well, tbh im sick of all this cheating stuff, and really i never cared or will care if any of my oponents is cheating against me its there stupid fun who cares. RedHotpawn is becoming stupid.

- Lolle