English Chess Forum

You should already know the meaning of the words 'modern' (as opposed to 'classical') and 'chess'.

What (chess) 'practice' is has been abundantly explained, above.

So, you should be able to understand any combination of them.

That just leaves - (modern chess) "world". And, that comprises everything to do with chess at present - all organisations, including FIDE & all its federations, leagues, clubs players, and all the events, activities and materials they produce and make use of.

Lasker said - any player who ceases to play the game merely for private amusement, but desires to probe the mysteries of chess as it progresses, and to enjoy the art of the great masters.... becomes a denizen of the chess world.

thanks.

Now: How is
I should always plan
different from
It is necessary that I always plan?

What's the difference between
Black no longer has the possibility of a minority attack on the queen side at his disposal, due to the fact that he has played
... a5.
and
Black no longer has the possibility of a minority attack on the queen side at his disposal, because he has played ... a5 .?

NO difference, because in both sentences the move ...a5 is not concidered conducive for a minority attack.

Regarding your last two posts -

Something you should do is something you really ought to do, but you still may not actually do it.
Something it is necessary to do is something you cannot really do without doing and therefore you must do it in order to do the thing you are trying to do.

E.g. You SHOULD try to plan when playing chess, but in blitz there's little time for that so it's NECESSARY to just keep moving to avoid losing on time.

"Due to the fact... " is just a longer and stronger way of saying "because (of)".

So, Barry S is right to say there's really NO difference in the meaning in this case.

Chess authors are very fond of using colourful, varied and elaborate language to make it more interesting for the reader and provide some relief from their technical explanations.

Thanks. What does it mean to give White an advantage (not the advantage)?

When does boast imply talking arrogantly, and when simply having (or having the honor of having)?

soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:21 am

When does boast imply talking arrogantly, and when simply having (or having the honor of having)?

I think (but am not totally sure) that the difference is in the grammatical structure. (The rest of the post gets a bit technical).

In the first use the verb is used "intransitively" - without a direct object : "he boasts" and if an object is required then something like a "that" must be ut in the sentence: "he boasts that he is the best in the world". (But the "that" can nowadays be missed out - the essential point is that what follows is a complete clause rather than just a noun phrase)

In the second use the verb is transitive and has a direct object: "he boasts a fine head of hair"

[Aside: on an English (ie not American) forum "honor" should be spelt "honour" !!! ]

Blimey! / Wow! / یاو!

(... must be 'ut' in the sentence?)

Thanks. What's the difference between
putting under pressure
and
exerting/applying prssure on
a pawn?

What's the difinition of a target in chess?

Hi.
What's a target in chess?
Are they always weaknesses of our opponents? If not, can you gives an example of a target which is not a weakness of our opponent?

From a pocket dictionary -

target: a) something aimed/shot at or attacked b) a goal/objective

Whatever you aim at or attack on the chess board. Whatever your goals/objectives are in a game.

Those things are your chess targets.

The king is usually a weakness in chess because checks on it, and the threat of mate, cannot be disregarded.

However, a well-defended king's position, though not not weak in itself, can still be a target.

If the defender plays well your attack on the king may not succeed, but if he doesn't it may.

Similarly, you can fianchetto a bishop to target the centre, king-side or queen-side without any weaknesses being apparent in them.

Though in all cases it is usually necessary to create and increase weakeness in order for the targetting to be effective.

Finally, to win can be your target, as can to draw. Even things such as chess prizes, titles, ratings and grades can be thought of as targets.

Thanks.
What's the difference between 'adequate' and 'sufficient in
I do not think that I can attack the black king, as my forces do not seem to be adequate in
number and sufficiently well placed for that purpose.

But although Black has a passive position, it is a tough nut to crack.

What does it refer to?

Thanks in advance