Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis from the author (a page back) of the following:
kissy kissy? 😛
note to would be posters, now while I understand that ones preconceptions may be challenged by the subtle conceptual ideas under discussion, please try refrain from getting personal, this is a chess forum, not the bitchin forum
The post that was quoted here has been removedI have not stated that it is new, in fact its been known for some time, way before the
Kramnic -Bartel match of 2012. I in fact got the idea from a chessFM lecture some
years ago, but being arrogant and stubborn, pigheaded, a semi literate peasant
unwilling to even entertain the opinions of others and given to talking unadulterated
nonsense I immediately dismissed it as the work of a madman and would hear no more
about it, how it came to surface in this game is really a mystery and entirely without
precedent. Naturally my innate unwillingness to learn from stronger players would
preclude this happening and one must therefore, after having dismissed all other
possibilities, conclude that it was a distortion of the natural laws of the universe, which
the religious term, a miracle.
The post that was quoted here has been removedIf you find having your preconceptions intellectually challenged as constituting an
attack on you personally then either you are neurotic and in need of some
assistance or have a siege mentality, either way, this is the chess only forum so
either 'pony up', some chess or take it elsewhere, as for me, i have provided
reasons for my assertions,
We do not sacrifice in chess for nothing, we expect something in return, whether its
a mating attack, the ruination of a pawn structure, the domination of a colour
complex, this in my opinion puts paid to the idea that we sacrifice material somehow
with the expectation of getting nothing in return, which is a nonsense, the logical
consequence of this is, that its an irrelevancy whether the material is returned or
not, because we have given something and hope to get something in return,
whether its time as in a gambit, or some positional concession when its a positional
sacrifice or even the material back. Now while I realise that this may not be an
original idea, it is the product of my own mind, I do not expect anyone else to either
validate it or to accept it for it has relevancy to no one but me, but what I will not do
is behave like a spoiled brat and start to lambaste someone simply because they do
not share the same opinion as me, for I realise that everyone's perspective is
different. I suggest Duchess64 that you go away and think deeply about what this
means, it may save you from issuing further unwarranted outburst, insults,
tantrums, assertions of misconstruing your text. I have absolutely no interest in
attacking you personally, in fact it grieves me somewhat to think that you thought
such was the case.
The post that was quoted here has been removedthis is the chess only forum , not the ad hominem forum,
There's no need for anger
There's no need for blame
There's nothing to prove
Ev'rything's still the same
Just a table standing empty
By the edge of the sea
Farewell Angelina
The sky is trembling
And I must leave.
Bob Dylan - Farewell Angelina.
Bye Duchess64.
26 Oct 12
Originally posted by tomtom232I wonder if Duchess64 will return, I kind of miss him/her. It was almost like having skeety back. 😛
I think the poisoned pawn variation of the sicilian is a true positional sacrifice... black sacrifices his position in order to win a pawn. 😛
25 Nov 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe Yeminator is an awesome player. He played here locally just recently. What a super nice person he is. It's great to hear such positive reports from a GM.
It seems the modifier "positional" is used mainly in the absence of immediate tactics. It reminds me of Yermolinsky's "spit and polishers" - guys who were proud of their ability to win without using many, or any, tactical motifs.