Originally posted by Bowmannwhat is pedantic in what I said? I quoted a definition from several chess encyclopediae, supporting a poster who previously gave a definition that was, in my opinion, equivalent. The (quite astute, I admit) attempt to prove him/her wrong was misplaced to my feeling. That's why.
Why can't you enter the spirit of these threads and be a little less pedantic?
Also, it's my understanding that THUDandBLUNDER refuses to play here simply in order to avoid being labelled a "freeloader", as many of us are.
Anything else 'pedantic' in my postings? Feel free to let us know.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWithout contributing anything? Hmm. Many players seem to appreciate the chess problems he posts.
The point, of course, is that he is a freeloader - he's taking up valuable server space without contributing anything (except pedantic posts) back to the community - like a good chess game, for instance.
A 'good' chess game? Too subjective.
Anyway, I would suggest that these disagreements be continued in their own thread, if it's really necessary.
Originally posted by BowmannI understand. You hate chess, as your profile states.
Without contributing anything? Hmm. Many players seem to appreciate the chess problems he posts.
A 'good' chess game? Too subjective.
Anyway, I would suggest that these disagreements be continued in their own thread, if it's really necessary.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWe had a similar debate in this forum not long ago. 😴
The point, of course, is that he is a freeloader - he's taking up valuable server space without contributing anything (except pedantic posts) back to the community - like a good chess game, for instance.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21412
Let's take a look at how some of this 'valuable' server space is being consumed. The following topics were recently begun by subscribers:
Longest nazel hair you have removed from your beak
The top 10 most attractive RHP'ers...
My new swimsuit
Vampires, Anyone?
.........................
........................
......................
Need I go on? Valuable server space?? Ha! 🙄
(Thank you for your support, Bowmann.)
.
Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDERYeah - but these guys pay for the server space. What's your excuse?
We had a similar debate in this forum not long ago. 😴
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21412
Let's take a look at how some of this 'valuable' server space is being consumed. The following topics were recently begun by subscribers:
[i]
Longest nazel hair you have removed from your beak
The top 10 most attractive RHP ...[text shortened]... ]
Need I go on? Valuable server space?? Ha! 🙄
(Thank you for your support, Bowmann.)
.
Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDERI suggest most people visit the forums between moves. As a little diversion from the refresh button. I have no problem with non subscribers posting in the forums but non playing non subscribers seems odd.
We had a similar debate in this forum not long ago. 😴
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21412
Let's take a look at how some of this 'valuable' server space is being consumed. The following topics were recently begun by subscribers:
[i]
Longest nazel hair you have removed from your beak
The top 10 most attractive RHP ...[text shortened]... ]
Need I go on? Valuable server space?? Ha! 🙄
(Thank you for your support, Bowmann.)
.
It is as if I'm a member of nudist colony, I am only slightly perturbed by strangers infiltrating the colony who are naked but I feel uncomfortable around the non colony member wandering around with all his clothes on!
Originally posted by lucifershammerI contribute IDEAS to these forums.
Yeah - but these guys pay for the server space. What's your excuse?
What do you contribute besides the the same old regurgitated arguments as at
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21412
eg. drivel-writing subscribers are preferable to creative non-subscribers. 😴
PS. What is more, my recs/moves ratio is the highest on the planet! 😛
In other words, I put in much more than I take out!
To start a thread under the guise of a "newbie" question, and then argue with one of the strongest and most respected players on the site over a simple (and accurate!) definition is beyond childish. I have no problem with non-subscribers, and invite their participation, as I believe that they ARE valuable members of this community (they are, after all, the pool of people who will provide the future paying members). That being said, I believe your intent with this thread was dubious from the beginning. If you were simply trying to illustrate a point, then you could have approached it much more constructively than by baiting Mephisto2 into an argument (which again, he was right about). You are confused with the difference between a piece, and a Piece. You being the wordsmith that you are should be able to sort the difference for yourself.
BLR
Originally posted by lucifershammerTHUDandBLUNDER contributes some good puzzles, both chess and otherwise, to this site. Perhaps you should look at more of his posts before making a snap judgement.
The point, of course, is that he is a freeloader - he's taking up valuable server space without contributing anything (except pedantic posts) back to the community - like a good chess game, for instance.
One has to wonder why was this thread started. Besides expending space and the nerves of all involved I see nothing really valuable in it.
If the point was to argue about definitions, this thread has certainly gone the wrong way.
Just as a side note, seeing all of you are pretty good with definitions of chess terms: Where can I find a good and explicit definition of smothered and semi-smothered mates, particularly the ones that are delivered by a bishop?
Originally posted by BLReidMy intention was to pose a couple of questons often asked by newbies (hence the thread name) about common chess terms which are often understood only intuitively. For example, many non-beginners believe that double check is a discovered check where the moving piece also gives check, which is not necessarily so, and even Korchnoi in his prime had to once ask an arbiter if a queen's rook could castle through 'check'. No 'bait' or 'guise' was intended. But for the sake of the other posters I will choose to ignore your gratuitous slurs on my good character, even though they have cut me to the quick. :'(
To start a thread under the guise of a "newbie" question, and then argue with one of the strongest and most respected players on the site over a simple (and accurate!) definition is beyond childish. I have no problem with non-subscribers, ...[text shortened]... you are should be able to sort the difference for yourself.
BLR
Anyway, imagine a beginner being taught about pawns and pieces and how pieces are worth more than pawns, etc. Then he learns about check, checkmate, discovered check, etc. Imagine further that he is then informed by (drum-roll) 'one of the strongest and most respected players on the site' that discovered check is 'a check on the opponent's king that is delivered by moving a piece out of the line of attack by a queen or rook or bishop.' What a poor confused newbie he would be if I then played an en passant discovered check against him, while trying to explain with a straight face that sometimes pawns are pieces!
.
Originally posted by THUDandBLUNDERa) Discovered check is when you put the enemy's King in check without moving the checking piece to do so.
Off the top of your head, what is
a) discovered check?
b) double check?
b) Double check is when you check the opponent's King with two pieces on the same move.
From a 'respected' source:
http://www.chesscentral.com/novice/chess_terms.htm
Chess Terms and Definitions
by NM Dan Heisman
....
Discovery: An attack by a piece that was opened up via another piece’s move.
....
Piece: Has 3 definitions, depending upon context:
1.All the chess men, as in “Get all the pieces out of the bag”
2.The non-pawns, as in “You have to develop all your pieces”
3.A Bishop or Knight, as in “I am up (ahead) a piece”