Is it the meaning of that statement?Arshad Ali wrote:And would relish with malice and schadenfreude the inferiority of the rook. And crow about it loudly and incessantly.
The English Language
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: enjoy superiority?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: little
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.Andrew Martin wrote:It means fake profile; a general taking of the piss.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: enjoy superiority?
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.soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Really?Michael Farthing wrote:In this position the bishop would be more powerful than the rook.
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.
-
- Posts: 1866
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: All Of Them
Re: Sharp
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.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Sharp
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:42 pm
Re: Sharp
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).
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).
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Event
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).
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).