Originally posted by usmc7257Why do you jump to conclusion and call me a narrow-minded fool?
Wow. Maybe your son wishes his father wasn't such a narrow-minded fool. I guess people always don't get what they want.
As you say people don't always get what they want, but that does
not mean one is narrow-minded for wishing for perfection does it?
Originally posted by RJHindsThe fact that you consider homosexuality an imperfection speaks volumes to your character. You think your son likes the fact that you think he is going to hell because of who he is?
Why do you jump to conclusion and call me a narrow-minded fool?
As you say people don't always get what they want, but that does
not mean one is narrow-minded for wishing for perfection does it?
Originally posted by usmc7257I do not believe my son is going to hell because of who he is. You
The fact that you consider homosexuality an imperfection speaks volumes to your character. You think your son likes the fact that you think he is going to hell because of who he is?
are judging me wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsAthiest are nerrowminded too. One reason is you don't see them seeking a religion.
Why do you jump to conclusion and call me a narrow-minded fool?
As you say people don't always get what they want, but that does
not mean one is narrow-minded for wishing for perfection does it?
The mistake I made was to take the final position much too lightly and gobble up too many pawn on the queen side. I'd assumed that running outside a and b pawns would be enough to win it as my king was covering the running pawn on the king side.
Unfortunately for me the bishop and knight were in a position to force either the g or h pawns through and my rook (which I'd hope would have covered on the g and h files) was too offside and the white king stopped it swinging over.
Haven't had a chance to look at the game to find out where exactly I could have improved and possibly there was no improvement available. I just had a gut feeling that with the king on the back rank and a very active rook I should have won
My choice of opening negates the value of my opponents using chess computers. As black I play very aggressive slightly unsound variations which computers do not play so well.
The Schliemann is completely mad but I've been playing it for almost 30 years so I know all of the ins and outs.
Computers do not play so well against the Kings Indian. They always lock the pawns up at the wrong time. Experience is vital and I've been playing this for 25 years.
As white I play passive lines where I'm looking to get out of peoples books and squeeze them in the middle game
Originally posted by kingshilldude you play is not in question, when your opponent consistently scores a ninety
The mistake I made was to take the final position much too lightly and gobble up too many pawn on the queen side. I'd assumed that running outside a and b pawns would be enough to win it as my king was covering the running pawn on the king side.
Unfortunately for me the bishop and knight were in a position to force either the g or h pawns through and m ve lines where I'm looking to get out of peoples books and squeeze them in the middle game
percent engine matchup rate, then as far as i am concerned, hes a chess genius,
Fischer and Spassky manage roughly a sixty fiver percent average! In the game
inquestion it appeared to me nothing short of miraculous that your opponent survived
a four to one queen side pawn deficit by active play against the opponents king