The English Language

A section to discuss matters not related to Chess in particular.
soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: enjoy superiority?

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon May 05, 2014 2:51 am

Arshad Ali wrote:And would relish with malice and schadenfreude the inferiority of the rook. And crow about it loudly and incessantly.
Is it the meaning of that statement?

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: little

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Mon May 05, 2014 3:06 am

Andrew Martin wrote:It means fake profile; a general taking of the piss.
I am registered in FIDE as 'Soheil Houshdaran' but my passport spelling in 'Hooshdaran'. I am not British. The "oo" and "ou" are both dipthonhgs standing for one Persian letter.

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: enjoy superiority?

Post by Michael Farthing » Mon May 05, 2014 9:58 am

soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Michael Farthing wrote:In this position the bishop would be more powerful than the rook.
Really?
There are some in this and other threads that are clearly irritated by your questions and are making unkind comments. I am not one of them and think it quite reasonable for you to ask for help on a chess forum about translating sentences from chess books. However, it would help if you would be clearer about you questions.

When you ask "Really?" do you mean:

"Surely the bishop is not more powerful than the rook"
or "Does powerful really mean the same as superiority"
or something else?

I wasn't able to open the attachment so my comment was simply an attempt to express the author's sentence in a different way, not a comment on the actual position. Whenever we try to use different words to say the same thing the meaning is going to change slightly. What I was seeking to do was to give you a feel for the ideas the author was trying to express.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Sharp

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu May 08, 2014 9:58 am

Hi
What's the difference between Sharp, Aggressive, and Active positions?

Thanks in advance

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Sharp

Post by Joey Stewart » Thu May 08, 2014 10:13 am

Different words meaning the same thing - the position could be a loss for either side if they play a single wrong move. Theory books love to encourage these but, in practice, they are very stressful and best avoided over the board.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Ray Sayers

Re: Sharp

Post by Ray Sayers » Thu May 08, 2014 10:34 am


MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Sharp

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu May 08, 2014 10:43 am

Some people do of course tend to thrive on tactical chaos :)

Agressive play doesn't have to be genuinely tactically sharp. Sometimes its just a semi strategic slow burn attack or the like.

The same with active pieces, although active pieces do nearly always make for potential tactics somewhere or other.

Matt Fletcher
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: Sharp

Post by Matt Fletcher » Thu May 08, 2014 10:58 am

I'd have said "sharp", unlike the others, often suggests the possibility for tactical chances on both sides.

And "active" is often used where one side has given up something for the activity of his pieces (eg pawn structure or a small amount of material).

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Re: Sharp

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu May 08, 2014 11:00 am

My problem is that I have translated 'fast, aggressive positions' literally and a friend of mine says 'fast' should be translated as 'sharp' here.

MartinCarpenter
Posts: 2431
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am

Re: Sharp

Post by MartinCarpenter » Thu May 08, 2014 11:22 am

Probably it should, yes. Not sure I've ever seen a position described as fast before now. Volatile (fast changing) might be another option.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Sharp

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu May 08, 2014 12:11 pm

Can you put questions like this in the "not chess" section of the forum please.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1064
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Sharp

Post by Joey Stewart » Thu May 08, 2014 12:23 pm

I think it belongs in the chess section, it is probably more relevant to the actual game then many other posts here.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

soheil_hooshdaran
Posts: 2775
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm

Event

Post by soheil_hooshdaran » Thu May 08, 2014 1:07 pm

Hi.
Any difference between a chess event and a chess tournament?

Thanks in advance

User avatar
Michael Farthing
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
Location: Morecambe, Europe

Re: Event

Post by Michael Farthing » Thu May 08, 2014 1:29 pm

A tournament is normally a competition to find the best team/player in a series of games
An event might be this, but could also be, for example, a simultaneous display.

The world championship match is certainly an event, but I think most English speakers might feel 'tournament' was not quite the right word if only two players are involved: we think of tournaments as having lots of players (well, I do).

Gordon Cadden
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:57 pm

Re: Event

Post by Gordon Cadden » Thu May 08, 2014 1:35 pm

A simultaneous display would be an event, demonstrating the dominant skill of one chess player.
A tournament would relate to the individual skills of every chess player in the competition.

Post Reply