darth_ender

Yes, turn 27 is where you moved P-9f, and where I thought you were moving to 8f and capturing (what I assumed you would do, so I didn't even bother looking at the board), then I would have captured your pawn with my silver.  However, if I'd paid attention and realized that was your move, I would have instead played:

Px8g+

If you are okay with this, then I will say let us proceed from there.  If not, we should go back to the way things had played out.

I offer two options: 1) go back to where I made my first error in position, and play from there; 2) continue as is.  I'm okay with either way.  You might come out better going back.  But it's up to you.

B-f5

Ah, okay.  Well, in this case I feel one can know it is one or the other.  Either there are absolute rights and wrongs or there are not.  I don't see any in-between for this.  So if you believe in God, you can easily believe there are absolute rights and wrongs, defined by our Creator.  If you don't then in reality I don't see any true way to identify absolute rights and wrongs.  Really, even those things which most atheists and agnostics hold to be right and wrong are only so because of values they have received in their culture.  Even in religious cultures of ancient history, people did not value human life the way we do, and often would kill each other for various reasons without doing anything wrong, according to their cultural standards.  Who is the atheist to judge them for doing so?  They did what was right, according to their standards.  Atheists have their own standards, which didn't just come to them as simply self-evident truths, but actually through a process of evolving culture.  And as culture continues to evolve, the standards of mankind will continue to change.  Thus, if there is no God, then there is no absolute right and wrong.  See my point.

And I feel like I may be coming off as passive-aggressive yet again, but it seems to me that you often ignore the bulk of my arguments and attempt to deflate them by pointing out some small wording problem.  Really, I think I present a very strong case, one that all non-believers must contend with as they argue their POV.  Their standards aren't absolute.

As you said before, religion crams their morals down everyone's throats.  I fail to see how the different morals of non-believers is not similarly crammed.  There is no issue that has no moral grounding.  Let's look at the VP debates last year.  Joe Biden=Catholic.  Paul Ryan=Catholic.  The point was raised that this is the first time this has ever happened, and the logical question followed regarding the sanctity of life in the unborn child.  Joe Biden's response: yes, I believe that unborn life is still sacred, and I personally oppose abortion, but I do not believe in forcing others to accept my moral viewpoint.  How is that any different from any other law.  Mandated healthcare is indeed forcing others to accept the viewpoint that we must all work together to ensure everyone's health can be taken care of, even though there is a valid argument that everyone should be more independent (that's a simplistic argument, but it shows what I'm getting at).  Every action we take, every view we hold is based on some moral premise.  And every time religion tries to cram some moral down someone's throat, some non-believer tries to cram some other moral down the religious person's throat.  That is life in this world of individuals, I guess, and I'm tired of non-believers claiming that somehow they have risen above such "pettiness".

Maybe you know something I don't.  I feel the exchange of bishop for silver is worth it, though.  In any case, we'll see how it plays out.  Bx7g+

^Then the irony of your statement is manifest.  How can something be right or wrong if there is no absolute truth?

On the discussion of morals, evolution, and cooperation, my POV is closer to Jaitea's than twister's, I'm afraid.  I don't believe that morals will disappear.  I do believe that they could be drastically different.  In fact, as cooperation is what has allowed our species to endure, and as our present set of morals involves much individuality, I could easily see a future set of morals in a completely godless world where the needs of individuals are entirely subservient to those of the whole of humanity.  My earlier example of the man who is a drain on society because of his terminal condition is a fine example.  In a much more cooperative society, he would be allowed to die for the good of humanity as a whole.

Yes, I'm afraid that morals would remain as strong as ever.  They would simply be different from today, with the above example a potential logical conclusion.  You see, without God, there is no right or wrong.  I'm sorry, but this is an absolute truth.  There is only a perceived right and wrong, something which will oscillate over time, especially if we were to lose the rigidity of religious conviction.  But even if the future portends morals we find horrific today, they will be no more right or wrong in their time....again, without God dictating.

The morals you enjoy today were passed down by Judeo-Christian culture, even if you don't like what those religions believe.  In reality, atheists' morals are only a slightly modified version of the set that the Judeo-Christian God already gave to mankind.

Alright.  Sx9g.  This wasn't exactly how I meant things to go, but 'tis okay.

I'm afraid in this case it did not, though it could have been prevented.  My silver was promoted, so now it moves like a gold general, meaning that square is no longer safe.  So you don't waste your turn, do you want to take that back?  I'll find out in the morning.  It was nice advancing the game so much further tonight.  Goodnight :)

I hope I make good moves at this point, because I wasn't paying attention and was thinking we were on the 8th file.  Sorry for my errors.

S-8g+

Sx9f

What do you think of the pictures?  Are they helpful for you?

Now here is move 21 through to where we currently are.

NOTE: The following has commentary added, now that the game is over.

21, 22

23, 24

25, 26

END COMMENTARY, ORIGINAL TEXT: This is presently what the board looks like.  While I immediately want to provide commentary, it's probably best to save it for after the game.  I will point out to all readers that, as you can see, except for the lone rook and bishop per side, most pieces are extremely slow in movement.  In Western chess, we are used to pieces sliding around the board, creating an intricate web of threats.  This is honestly something I love about chess!  It's beautiful in the combinations you can make.  Shogi is much slower and takes a while to get going, as most pieces may only make a single step at a time.  However, once a few exchanges take place, the drops begin to expand the possibilities dramatically.  Obviously, while shogi doesn't have nearly so much available in the way of long distant attacks, the paratrooping of your pieces is an extremely enjoyable aspect of this game, and it gets super exciting.  It's a great game!

CONTINUING COMMENTARY AFTER GAME COMPLETED:

27, 28

29, 30

At this point I think Ric made his first serious error.  We had played the game a few moves with mistakes on both parts, and both agreed to go back to this point, but I still think he could have played it better.  I think he had hoped to counter my attack as best as possible by removing silver general, but truthfully I think he would have had better success just attacking my pawn on the rank that his rook was defending.  He should have brought his left silver or gold general forward to defend the 8g square.  With the pawn in hand, he could have fairly easily countered my attack by dropping that new pawn on the defended 8g square.  It would require more work on my part to break through his defenses.  As is, I now have gained a bishop and lost a silver, clearly the exchange in my favor.

I'm not going to change the previous set of pictures, but I like this background better.  Hopefully the symbols on this set of pieces makes it easier for any non-Japanese-reading fans to follow along.  Here are moves 11-20.

NOTE: I have added commentary now that the game is over.

11, 12

Now that I feel I have my king pretty secure, I begin with the strategy that worked well last time: advancing my rook pawn.  Meanwhile, Ric is moving his king to a more secure location.

13, 14

15, 16

While Ric continues to move his pieces for a more secure king, I begin what I believe is called climbing the pole.  Since my rook is protecting the 8 file, and since I cannot advance my pawn further, as it will simply be set back (this you will see when you read the commentary on the first game), I send the silver general (the moon piece) on a mission of infiltration.  Though Ric's king is being safely nestled into one corner, I know I cannot break through until I obtain more pieces from my opponent that I can begin dropping behind enemy lines.  Thus, I attack his weaker flank with hopes for a breakthrough and a gain in material.

17, 18

19, 20

Click here for next set of moves.

P-8f

In shogi, instead of notating every pair of moves as 1. (white move)  (black move); 2. (white move)  (black move); etc., they simply give each player a number for themselves, e.g. 1. (black move [remember, in spite of the lack of color, the first player is called black]); 2. (white move); 3. (black move); 4. (white move), etc.

So I shall be showing every other move for the current game, and I'll try to keep the pictures current.  These are the first ten moves.

NOTE: The following is not part of my original comment.  Now that the game is finished, I am adding commentary on this second game.  Hopefully it will be interesting and useful.

Black (the player at the bottom of the board): Ric
White: (at the top): darth_ender

After 1 and 2

3 and 4

After a successful first game, I could tell that Ric was learning quickly and reading up on strategy.  Two common openings are being employed here.  One is to advance your rook pawn and begin an attack that way, the strategy I employed in the first game and that Ric is employing in this game.  I seldom have tried the bishop strategy, as it results usually in a more dynamic game, and truthfully I am still a novice as well.  However I thought I'd give it a shot.  The idea is that the opposing player might open the diagonal with his bishop, I take his, he retakes mine, and now we both have bishops in hand to place elsewhere.

5 and 6

7, 8

As you can see, Ric is not taking my bait.  He advanced his rook, I presume to provide some protection and make any attempts to advance into his territory more difficult.  At this point I decided I would move my king to safety.  There is no castling move like in Western chess, and with the danger of drops later in the game, it is imperative that you move your king to safety during the slower moments early in the game, prior to the exchange of pieces and the danger of paratrooping behind enemy lines.

9, 10

Click here for the next set of moves.

play.chessvariants.org

I've tried it before, but I didn't get it to work.  Now it's working fine.  I can enter a move or two, then ask it to generate an independent page with pictures.  I'm about to post the first ten moves of this game.  I will try to get caught up with this game (it still takes a few minutes to get this together, though it's far easier than the print screen method I was using before).  Once I get caught up, I'll try to put together our last game with some commentary for those interested.

S-9e

S-8d

I may have figured something out that will make putting pictures up far easier. for these games!  I'll be checking it out between moves :)

I wish to discuss morals a bit, as it pertains generally to nearly all discussions we have here, though this is in response to no one person or post in particular.

Morals are one of two things (though I will actually argue for a third later): ambiguous and determined entirely by society; absolute and determined entirely by God.  As I've stated before, the morality of certain actions is difficult to justify when one leaves God out of the picture (note: this is not an argument for his existence, just that something is not inherently right EVER without him).  Let's talk about the biggest question of morality: human life.  When can a person take another person's life?  I think, apart from abortions, most of us agree on this.  But when we discuss the why, it becomes a bit more ambiguous.  Why is it wrong to murder?  Someone (Leonardo?) mentioned that it's wrong because it is destructive to the overall wellbeing of our species.  But this is clearly not the case.  How often do we preserve life which technically is nothing but a drain on our species.  The elderly offer little to the overall survival of humanity, the severely ill are a substantial drain, the mentally ill or physically or mentally disabled cost our society as a whole so much, yet give nothing in return.  Where I work, there is a man so ill, lying on death's door, yet still alive for weeks and weeks.  He has surely cost Medicare hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, yet he remains alive, and it would be wrong for us to kill him.  Why?  What does he give to us?  It is wrong because either God said so, or because our society believes it to be wrong.

Why am I making such a big point out of this?  Because the fact of the matter is that those who criticize religion and believe that harmony will come to the earth when religion is (peaceably, according to most) eradicated.  What they fail to realize is that the very values they cherish, the very society they have adopted, the very freedom to exercise a belief in no religion, came from those before them who worshiped the Creator of Heaven and earth.  Those who are sick of religion telling them what to do and believe fail to realize that their own social/political dogmas do the same.  Sure, they are more liberal in their values, but who is to say that a different, future society won't find what present-day non-believers cherish to be outdated, archaic, even barbaric.  One day, euthanasia may be commonplace.  One day, privacy might be drastically inhibited in order to better preserve humanity.  One day, eugenics, population controls, genetic alteration, sterilization, and other things we might call immoral horrors may be put into place because the fact of the matter is we can indeed better preserve humanity if we better controlled the whole of it.  Sure, humans lose their individuality, but in return we gain security for our species.

Religion and nonbelief can coexist.  In fact they must learn to, for neither will replace the other, unless I'm right and the Second Coming of Christ finally occurs of course ;)  The fact of the matter is that both provide good, both can be moral, and both may see things differently.  But just because those moral lines are drawn differently does not mean that they cannot ultimately work together for the benefit of all.

S-8c

N-f6

S-7b

This whole thread is just so gay!

;)

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:o.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

 pretty sure that is illegal.  

 It is illegal, and they would never give it as a reason for not hiring someone on the outset.  But on my mission, I remember meeting people who in fact were very nice, but they said that if they knew a job applicant was Mormon, they would not hire them.  Of course they would not admit that such was the reason when the time came, but they told me as much.  I guess I have a small sample, but I honestly believe that it represents a decent sized number of people.  I'm sure there are others elsewhere in the country, including my home state of AZ.

Let us not forget that a black man was reelected over a Mormon.  To me that shows that the tangible benefits might not only be slated against the African American community.  I encourage all to read this brilliant comment and see just how bigoted the left can even be against Mormons and how it tangibly has affected the way this country is run.

But yes, we were talking about homosexuality.  Sorry to take it off on a tangent.  My ultimate point is that bigotry should never be acceptable, even against privileged majority.

TV's Frink said:

Again, so what?  Just for example, it doesn't keep you from getting married.  Where's the tangible disadvantage?

You shouldn't listen to everything a student newspaper says anyway. ;-)

 Well, the student newspaper to me represents the views of so many left-winged, politically correct, white guilt folks.  Yes, there are advantages to being part of a majority.  But why is it necessary to have tangible disadvantages in order to stand up for what's right?  Why can't we stand up for what's right all the time?

But if we must discuss tangible disadvantages...

I have been threatened with my life for being a Mormon trying to share my message as a missionary.

I have been belittled many times for my faith.  I don't always feel comfortable sharing my church membership in public because of the criticism I receive.  One of the residents at my work has started several conversations with me, claiming that "the Mormons" run the facility and that every little thing that goes wrong is their fault.  She can often be demeaning in her criticisms, yet she does not know that I am actually Mormon.

Numerous church buildings and temples have been vandalized in recent years, particularly following the defeat of gay marriage in the states where such measures were voted a few years ago.

Many facilities, particularly in the South, will not hire a Mormon.

There are others I could say.  It is not as pretty a picture as you think, and we take flak from Christians and atheists.  I need to go to bed.  I'd also hoped to discuss the tangible problems of bigotry against Christians.  I'll get to it later.  Just don't think of it as so simple and easy because we're not part of the politically-correct protected minority clique.

Yikes, still so much to say, and I don't know when I'll ever have time to put it all into words :(