darth_ender

G*3e check

I'm glad that you didn't take it that way.  Again, I simply was overly enthusiastic.

That sounded rude.  I apologize.  I just was having such a hard time figuring out how to crack that shell.  Sorry.  Didn't mean to be rude.

G-3d

Sx1c.  Finally broke through!

S*2d check

I don't mean to be rude, as I have probably already been too harsh on frievous in the past, and he is often the subject of others' ridicule in other threads, but...why would you start a thread like this?  If you were someone else, I'd take it as a serious topic worth discussing.  But coming from you, it just convinces me further than you have an extremely negative outlook on just about everything.  I really think you need to lighten up, try to see a little more of the good in life, and spend at least part of your day dwelling on happier thoughts.  Life sucks now, but it has always sucked in different ways throughout history.  But there is also much good, much to make us happy.  Psychologists say that sad people are more realistic, but I'd rather be a little more optimistic than realistic.  The optimists are the ones who turn negative realities into positive ones.  Change your world rather than dwelling on the bad.

P*1c

Gx3c

I think we both know how the next few moves will play out.

Sx3c

^And you have the correct answer.  Unfortunately it was only the $100 question because it was so obvious.

^I say we send him to a Turkish prison!

darth_ender said:

Anyway, I still like and respect you...and I'm glad to see you back.

 :(

I had hoped you liked and respected yourself ;)  Also thought this might have been reciprocated.

Alright Warb, here was my strategy.  Hopefully you are able to replay the game as well with software or something, because it would be easier to follow my train of thought.

In the beginning, I was playing strategically, not tactically.  As black, one has the inherent slight disadvantage of a more defensive game, especially at higher levels.  White gets to set the tone and pace a bit in the beginning.  And since I knew I had that vulnerability next to my king, I wanted to get him safely castled as quickly as possible, and preferably on queen side.  Obviously king side is almost always preferable, but with that missing pawn, king side remained vulnerable, so I figured queen side was better.

By turn 8, my king was safer in the corner, and you had my knight pinned with your bishop, with my queen as the important piece behind.  I figured it would be better to remove the pin early to prevent complications down the road, and since I'm usually willing to trade knights for bishops (the latter tend to be more valuable as the board frees up, while the former are better in the early, cramped parts of the game), I was okay with forcing a trade.  However, I recaptured your bishop with my pawn instead of queen.  I can't remember exactly why I did this, but I think it may have been because one shouldn't usually develop the queen too early, and I wanted to keep her protected till later.

That said, you began making effective use of your knight, placing him among my own pieces, but with his effective reach.  I was forced to either remove your knight or move my queen, and I figured again that I wouldn't mind a trade of my bishop for your knight, since we'd already done the reverse just before.  And I was ultimately hoping for a king-side attack on h2 with my queen supported by my black-square bishop, so I gave up my white-square bishop more freely.

Then I made a serious error, one that you could have exploited far more: I moved my king to b8.  I'm not even sure why anymore.  I think I was afraid that you were going to eventually take advantage of the white-square diagonal and attack my king, so I was simply moving him early to "safety" in a position I thought was similar to the king-side castle.  Then I immediately realized that it was an error, and I wanted to take it back, but I didn't think it was fair to do so.  You trading the bishop for knight was wise, as it opened up the defense I'd worked so hard to create for my king.  I now had a pawn undefended by fellow pawns and my king sitting on an open file.  Meanwhile, your queen needed to make only a single move to check the king, which might have allowed an extra move to reposition for another strike...if only my queen and bishop weren't guarding the right square.  But I knew I couldn't leave her there forever, so this position really made me nervous, and I thought I just threw the whole game right there.

We both advanced our d pawns.  My hope was to threaten your queen with my rook as we captured each others' pawns.  It was a nother simple pin, but I thought I could win a pawn out of it, and maybe improve my position with a more aggressive setup.  Rooks are vulnerable on a crowded board with their limited mobility, but the middle was freeing up quick, and if I could control it with my rook, it would limit your queens abilities to harass me.

I then thought that perhaps I could take advantage of the open file on king-side with my queen backed up by my rook.  I suspected I could break through, as it is pretty easy to defend that sort of attack, but if I put pressure there, I might be able to divert your resources and perhaps find an exchange where I'd win material.  My bishop was still guarding the all-important black square I didn't want your queen to move to.  But then you scootched her over one square, now able to attack my vulnerable king by using the white square diagonal to get there.

You of course chose to defend against my pending assault rather than simply move to an attacking square, which was best of course.  You moved your knight to defend the g2 pawn and preserve your pawn line there.  But if I could effectively remove the knight, I'd then be able to take advantage of my queen-rook lineup.  I captured your d4 pawn with mine on turn 17, guessing that you'd counter with your pawn, which I'd then retake with my rook, gaining a pawn and attacking the critical knight.  If all didn't go well, I'd still maintain control of the center.  But instead of giving me this advantage, you moved your rook to d1.  I still had gained a pawn so far, but I wanted to keep my rook and not further damage my pawn structure in another trade.  So instead I moved my bishop, still hoping to evict your knight from the h4 square.  If you simply moved it, I'd checkmate you.  If not, I still might win the knight.  You captured my d4 pawn with your rook.

I used the discovered attack against your knight by advancing my pawn, while still baiting you with my rook.  If you took it, I knew I could come out ahead in the exchange, either by getting your knight or by mate.  You took my rook, I imagine expecting me to recapture with my pawn and even the exchange.  But I captured the knight, threatening mate on the next move if you didn't take action.  You moved your g pawn forward one.

Now here's where I became more and more tactical in my fight.  Your pawn move prevented me from battering through to you with the queen and rook, but obviously because of your king's placement, you could not legally take my bishop.  So I was free now to get your rook with my pawn.  Now though I remained behind one pawn from the initial handicap, I was a piece ahead.

Knowing your disadvantage with your king's placement, you moved him to h1.  But bear in mind in future games that the corner is where you can be mated most easily.  Even though you could legally capture the bishop, such would be suicide, as you'd have opened up that vital file and allowed me to place my queen on f2, mating you.  I left the bishop there, hoping you might make such an error.  Of course you did not.  But then I saw that there were other pins on your pawns I could make.  I placed my queen on g4, knowing that a move to h3 could threaten your rook and prevent you from capturing anything at g3 with your h2 pawn, a potential future attack I'd hoped for.  But more importantly, if I could go to the other side and attack your king from f3 or e4, I knew I could force you to move your king to the important (to me) f file, or even trick you to moving your rook that file.  While there was an advantage for you to do so, meaning that if you captured my bishop on the h file, you'd have your rook guarding the square you were worried about on g2.

I left my bishop there, deliberately hoping you'd ultimately take it, as I knew this would be your undoing.  At his point it really was no longer illegal, and you thought you had the right squares defended.  But what you didn't realize was that time was now working against you.  Your king now had only one square it could move to, and I could attack it with my queen.  Taking my bishop would give me enough time to maneuver my pieces to the proper spots.  I couldn't mate you immediately with the queen because you could safely block with your rook.  I needed a second piece to still attack your king.  So my rook, no longer needed for my original battering ram type attack with the queen, nor needed to pin your pawn, was placed on e8.  I was still nervous though that you might make better use of your queen.  You could have moved her to squares that might have prevented my attack, or at least made it more difficult.  That is why I left that tempting forbidden fruit, my bishop, just waiting for Eve to take a bite.  And since you did, your queen in a harmless position, I covered your only escape route with my queen.  Since you could only block with the rook, I sent my rook to e1, safe from your queen, unblockable by your now pinned rook.

I hope this was useful.  I was able to win your knight by taking advantage of a pinned pawn.  But aside from this, you should have made better use of your queen.  Look at our pawn structures on turn 20 or 21.  You had a much better defense than I did.  You could have sent me running to hide and gained a more favorable position.  Next time try to play to little strengths like that.

I'd be interested to hear any of your thoughts on this commentary.  It's not Bobby Fischer, just me.  But if it's useful, it might strengthen your game.  Another?  Same handicap?

Alright, I'm sorry once again that you did all that work and I wasn't able to play.  Busy day, and when I thought I had a few moments and wrote a couple other replies, a sudden serious challenge came up at work and kept me busy for a while longer.  I didn't get home till almost 10:00, close to 15 hours after leaving home.

Anyway, I guess I should have seen your plan because it was wise and I guess I wasn't paying attention.  It was good work, and I'm a little bummed that I made you reconsider your work.  But now I know your secret, so I guess we'll have to play the other route.  It looks like a viable strategy as well.

P*2c

You know, now thinking about it, if you don't like the direction this is going, we can try for the other, and I'll commit to my original plan of dropping a pawn at 5d, though I know the dangers of doing so.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

I do not believe that most people who commit abortions understand that it is wrong in the same way I do.

 :-/

There are two really offensive things in this sentence.  I should have known better than to start this up.

 Very true.  Let's see, it's offense to be convinced that I'm right.  That's number one.  Number two is that I state it so generally, I suspect, though you know my position from numerous previous posts.  Sometimes I feel like you can't see the forest for the trees when we get into these arguments.  You get hung up on little things and miss the real points of my arguments on too many occasions.  Anyway, I still like and respect you, I don't feel you did anything wrong per se (though if I did the same, believing as I do now, then perhaps I'd be less sure, though again I don't really know your circumstances), and I'm glad to see you back.

And I'm sure that in spite of my attempted careful phrasing, I probably offended you again with some particular phrasing.  Guess what?  I'll never believe I'm wrong, and I doubt you ever will.  I could be just as easily offended that you're so sure you're right that abortion is a woman's choice.  Instead, I respect your opinion, although I believe you are wrong.

I don't know your situation well enough, nor do I know how much pain the baby in the news story is experiencing.  I do not judge you or anyone for not holding the same values as I do, as I do not believe that most people who commit abortions understand that it is wrong in the same way I do.  And finally, I already admitted that the situation is more complicated than most.  Restated, I'm not saying that this case is necessarily a no abortion case; indeed, it may be in the child's best interest.  I'm simply saying that just because of the possibility of these things, abortion should not be the default answer.  I really feel all human life is precious, even faulty life, and that the greatest of care should be used when deciding to end it.

darth_ender with the National Inquisitor.  I'm just curious if you are going to deny that you had an affair with Oprah Winfrey and that you're dying from abusing drugs for so long that you've shot your kidneys and your liver.  Only yes or no answers, please.

I of course mean that pain, defomity, the potential for a purposeless life, and being a drain on society are not all enough of a reason to choose to end someone's life.  And I of course believe that a fetus's life is just as valid as any other person's.

Perhaps it was too obvious for even Ric?!

The day Ric was born, his mother began breastfeeding him.  Some children have a hard time with this, but you know what Ric's mom told him?  "You latch on pretty quick."

Ba-dum-tish!

All handsome people in Hollywood vote Democrat.  TV's Frink/Ric unmasked is handsome....2+2 my friend.

It amazes me how people at this site obsess over TV's.  He's a nice guy, but he votes Democrat, after all.... ;)

Hey, I've lost quite a few games in my day.  Though that sucks, when I manage to beat a superior opponent, that is when I really feel a great deal of satisfaction, in some ways outweighing the winning of several games.  Hang in there and you might just show me the smackdown.  This is also how you get better.  That is why I really want to analyze my side of the game for you.  If you know my thoughts, you might be able to better counter them in the future.

I am at work.  I am caring for a patient with very advanced dementia, who hardly eats or drinks in spite of a great deal coaxing, who is constantly confused and is clearly miserable, who is on pain medication.  She is now on hospice, but may live for another six months.  She provides nothing to society or humanity.  She merely is a drain on the limited resources at our disposal, and because of her intense needs, she is fact contributing to rising insurance prices and high Medicare taxes.  And I could never have her killed simply because she is an inconvenience.

I understand that such is a very controversial case, and is not so black and white to me as most cases that I argue.  But I think my point is understood.

All that work and I have been too busy to play the game.  Sorry.  I'll be home soon and will make a couple of moves then.

I'll explain my thoughts when I can.  I'm at work away from my computer and the software I played the game on where I can review the moves better.  Thanks for taking it well.  I am enjoying playing you. :)