The English Language

[MartinCarpenter]

How are you sure he hadn't in mind the subtle differnces?

They're not really about meaning in this context, more the poetic flow of the language and other such things. Exceedingly hard to explain or to translate sensibly.
(Except via doing a direct translation then making the translation flow nicely of course.).

[soheil_hooshdaran]

How are you sure he hadn't in mind the subtle differnces?

They're not really about meaning in this context, more the poetic flow of the language and other such things. Exceedingly hard to explain or to translate sensibly.
(Except via doing a direct translation then making the translation flow nicely of course.).

But you need to explain!

[soheil_hooshdaran]

Whay did he say ...the resulting would favors knights

Seirawan wrote that? It isn't even English.

Oops!
he said... would favor

[soheil_hooshdaran]

What's the difference between bringing knight whithin the sight of c5?
and
bringing knight close to c5?

[IM Jack Rudd]

The resulting what would favour knights? There seems to be a missing subject in that sentence.

[soheil_hooshdaran]

The resulting what would favour knights? There seems to be a missing subject in that sentence.

Oops!
The resulting position....

[IM Jack Rudd]

OK then, the difference between "the resulting position favours knights" and "the resulting position would favour knights" is that the latter construction has an implicit hypothetical. I'd expect to see it in sentences like "white, who has the two bishops, declines to play d4-d5 here, because the resulting position would favour knights".

[John McKenna]

There are also perhaps some subtle differences in meaning around fine vs good etc, but they'd be very hard to make explicit.

I think I need to reflect them in my translation.

I'd say a "fine outpost" is a better outpost than a "good" one.

For example - a fine outpost might one from which a piece cannot be dislodged, whereas a good outpost may be one which a piece may eventually be forced to vacate.

I'd hazard a guess that Seirawan wrote, "... would favor..." and not "would favors".

Soheil wants to know why Seirawan didn't write, ".... favors knights." and has carelessly used 'favors' instead of 'favor' thereby misquoting the author. (I see that Soheil has admitted this and other such misquotes, above.)

While I agree with Roger that Seirawan is too prolific with words at times that is a part of Yasser's style of writing. Some may find it engaging and entertaining, others may find it long-winded and overblown.

I feel sure that a language as old and rich as Farsi is just as capable as English of being used in such a hyperbolic fashion.

Mores the pity that only Soheil can appreciate that here and that he is using the ENGLISH Chess Forum as a sounding board for his efforts to translate Seirawan's peculiar AMERICAN English.

That makes for an interesting but also a frustrating series of exchanges.

[John McKenna]

OK then, the difference between "the resulting position favours knights" and "the resulting position would favour knights" is that the latter construction has an implicit hypothetical. I'd expect to see it in sentences like "white, who has the two bishops, declines to play d4-d5 here, because the resulting position would favour knights".

Yes, "... would favor..." is hypothetical, and it is conditional on the actual position arising. Therefore "would favor" can be used to indicate a variation that might arise, whereas "...favors..." can indicate a position has arisen in the main game, for example.

[NickFaulks]

I'd say a "fine outpost" is a better outpost than a "good" one.

You might and I might, but I don't think that Yasser would. He would just like the word "fine" better. "Good" is a bit flaccid.

[MartinCarpenter]

Especially if you've already used it for something else in the same game. Three are also a bunch of phrases like solid, secure, powerful, influential etc possible.

They've all actually got quite different meanings in other contexts but here they'd all simply be complementing the outpost.

[John McKenna]

I'd say a "fine outpost" is a better outpost than a "good" one.

You might and I might, but I don't think that Yasser would. He would just like the word "fine" better. "Good" is a bit flaccid.

Of course, you are about right about that, Nick.

Yasser is ever the American showman, playing with words, in print. (I wonder if he's read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?)

I've not seen enough of his live commentary to know if his spoken eloquence approaches his written one, or not. Would he make a good snake-oil salesman?

Especially if you've already used it for something else in the same game. Three are also a bunch of phrases like solid, secure, powerful, influential etc possible.

They've all actually got quite different meanings in other contexts but here they'd all simply be complementing the outpost.

And, would he draw the line at using the truly American expression "a damn fine outpost" or if he'd find it too coarse and or profane due to his origins?

[soheil_hooshdaran]

OK then, the difference between "the resulting position favours knights" and "the resulting position would favour knights" is that the latter construction has an implicit hypothetical. I'd expect to see it in sentences like "white, who has the two bishops, declines to play d4-d5 here, because the resulting position would favour knights".

Yes, "... would favor..." is hypothetical, and it is conditional on the actual position arising. Therefore "would favor" can be used to indicate a variation that might arise, whereas "...favors..." can indicate a position has arisen in the main game, for example.

No, he is just describing why he exchanged his "fine" dark-squared Bishop with the enemy knight by saying:
"Normally I wouldn;t..., but..."

[Roger de Coverly]

No, he is just describing why he exchanged his "fine" dark-squared Bishop with the enemy knight by saying:
"Normally I wouldn;t..., but..."

Perhaps he's describing the thought process.

"Normally I wouldn't exchange a Bishop for a Knight, but the resulting position would favour Knights."

[John McKenna]

I feel that this whole thread is subject to someone's propensity for magical thinking -

Magical thinking is a form of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which superstitions are formed based on seeing patterns in a series of coincidences. For example, "these are my lucky trousers. Sometimes good things happen to me when I wear them." (Wikipedia)

Parts of the puzzle are always missing - like the missing logical links in a fallacy - and only supplied when it furthers the author's narrative.