Re: enjoy superiority?
Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 4:12 pm
Or trying to induce h4 somehow because that'd really make the endings a bit worrying. It just looks very unpleasant to me really.
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
But what IS already worse statically, devoid of dynamic trumps.IM Jack Rudd wrote:OK, here's something more concrete: after 2...Rd6 3.Re2 (chosen to give white the opportunity of doubling rooks on the file easily) Qc7, black's extracting a mini-concession: 3.Be3 allows black to get a rook to e4, 3.Bg3 means white always has to worry about ...g5, and 3.g3 slightly weakens the kingside. It's still probably not enough to win, but it's the sort of position where black can probe and white will find it hard to keep everything under control.
I am translating "Play Winning Chess" by GM Seirawan into Persian (I am from Iran) and have read from other English sources during my chess career ( some 13 years, I am now dropped to 1860 ) plus some russian sources (I suck at Russian)Christopher Kreuzer wrote:This should be obvious. It is claimed that chess originated as a war game. Both sides are an army trying to defeat the other in a war over the 64 squares of the chessboard. It might help if you gave some more details about which languages you are reading chess books in and which languages you are familiar with. You might have said this earlier, but I may have missed this.
My problem is whether it just means "valuable, helpful" or means "it deserves doing it" or something like that?IM Jack Rudd wrote:It's a common enough word in standard English, but it wasn't easy to think of a definition off the top of my head; the definition I found on http://www.dictionary.com was "sufficiently important, rewarding, or valuable to justify time or effort spent".
In the context of this passage of text, it also conveys the implication that d4 is a move that white would want to play whether or not it attacked the black queen, for the reasons given after the word "worthwhile".
I thought that the word 'piece' can include any chess man...At least this is what various dictionaries say, and GM Seirawan used it that was.Matt Fletcher wrote:No - but when talking about moves in a game, using the word 'piece' specifically excludes the pawns.
And you can split the pieces into major pieces (Rook and Queen), minor pieces (Bishop and Knight) and King.
This link may help:
At a general level of English, chess pieces means all 32 of them. At a more specific technical level of writing about chess moves, the term piece usually means just a Queen, Rook, Bishop or Knight. Other languages may vary and have separate words for the two meanings.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: I thought that the word 'piece' can include any chess man.
Geoff Chandler wrote:Hi,
Not too sure what you mean so I will split my explanation.
Pawns are always pawns. They are not pieces.
"White is a piece up." means that White has won a Knight or Bishop.
If the material balance is a Queen, Rook or a pawn (or pawns) then you say.
"White is a Queen up.", "White is a Rook up." or in the case of pawns. "White is a pawn up."
Some writers will include the Rook into the piece category. This is up to you.
Stick to calling pawns 'pawns' and the pieces 'pieces' and you will not be wrong.
Mixing the two, as you can see, may cause confusion.
If you mean do writers use different names for the actual pieces.
Sometimes they do to flower up their prose, make it jazzy. (sound clever).
But there are no other official names for the pieces. If in doubt or it may confuse then don't do it.
"....the pawn on c6 keeps a beast (a Knight) off d5."
".....The Big Fellah (the King) is in danger."
"......The Lady (Queen) has been caught with her knickers down."
These are some of mine - awful writing but then again I usually note up awful (but instructive) games.