Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Chess? [View all]

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
38. No. You ARE distorting what I said in my OP.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:35 PM
Dec 2012

Here is what I said (rhetorically):
[font size=]"Chess is a game where Pawns are sacrificed to protect the Royalty"[/font]
(note to Chorophyll : this is one of the occasions I referenced above)

By ALL measures of logic, that is a TRUE statement.
In the Game of Chess, Pawns are sacrificed routinely, every day, to protect the Royalty. It is usually a sign that someone has lost the game, but is desperately clinging to the hope that they can somehow Pull It Out.

EVERYBODY with even a superficial knowledge of Chess KNOWS that.
Anyone who has ever played Chess has DONE that, even YOU.
The term "Sacrificial Pawn" has entered the common lexicon.

Never did I say that it was a "significant" part of the game,
or even a good strategy.
YOUR Strawman said THAT.

It would be just as true to say that:
Football is a game where the ball is thrown down field to score Touchdowns.
That also is a TRUE statement.

Here is the fiction YOU created in your failed attempt to discredit my position.
[font color = firebrick size=3] JoePhilly stated:
"In the OP, you suggest that sacrificing pawns in a significant part of what chess is."[/font]
I call BULLSHIT on you, and challenge you to document your charge.
At no time or place did I say, or even imply that Sacrificing Pawns was "a significant part of what chess is",
nor did I say or imply that it was a good strategy.
I merely stated that it HAPPENS.

Are you going to insist that Chess is a game where Pawns are NEVER sacrificed to protect the Royalty?
Go ahead.
Make my day.

Thank You for kicking this thread in a futile attempt to defend your indefensible position. I'm having fun, and looking for a smilie of Spiking-the-Ball
I generally don't believe in taunting losers, but in this instance I will make an exception.

Walk Away, or post a defense of the ONLY position that will logically disprove
the statement I made in the OP.
Defend YOUR position that :
[font size=3]Pawns are NEVER sacrificed to protect the Royalty in Chess.[/font]

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Chess? [View all] bvar22 Dec 2012 OP
Is that an image of the evil Obama? ProSense Dec 2012 #1
Well, you know... you just can't trust "their kind" n/t Scootaloo Dec 2012 #4
No. That wasn't posted as an image of our President. bvar22 Dec 2012 #9
This message was self-deleted by its author cliffordu Dec 2012 #20
Checkers slackmaster Dec 2012 #2
CHECKMATE leftstreet Dec 2012 #3
K&R forestpath Dec 2012 #5
... Tx4obama Dec 2012 #6
An oldie, but a goodie. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #7
As a chess player, I NEVER sacrifice pawns..... lastlib Dec 2012 #8
You say you play Chess, bvar22 Dec 2012 #10
can't say I haven't made mistakes and lost a few, but never DELIBERATELY just give one away.... lastlib Dec 2012 #15
"just giving one away" is NOT a "Sacrifice", bvar22 Dec 2012 #22
You clearly have no idea how chess is actually played. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #11
Gish Gallop Nonsense. bvar22 Dec 2012 #12
The fact that you do not (can not) understand chess, does not make it a "Gish Gallop" event. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #13
Hey, Joe Philly.... bvar22 Dec 2012 #17
Of course, I'd exchange the pawn for the win, but that's not a true "sacrifice." lastlib Dec 2012 #16
I'd love to play a game of chess with you. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #18
okay I just won a game of chess against level 8 on the computer hfojvt Dec 2012 #32
So what you just explained is a computer program that appears to make decisions JoePhilly Dec 2012 #34
That is close enough for the OP to be a valid statement. bvar22 Dec 2012 #19
Hey guy? Your large bold type makes me instantly skip over everything you post. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #28
I really don't care what you "skip over". bvar22 Dec 2012 #29
The substance of your post, such as it was, was lost in your screaming. Chorophyll Dec 2012 #30
When dealing with the impaired, bvar22 Dec 2012 #33
lol. Bobby Fischer is that you???? JoePhilly Dec 2012 #35
Bobby Fischer? bvar22 Dec 2012 #36
Which is why I asked if you were he. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #37
No. You ARE distorting what I said in my OP. bvar22 Dec 2012 #38
Did you really say that????? 99Forever Dec 2012 #40
No sarcasm was needed. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #41
Oh please. 99Forever Dec 2012 #43
Perhaps you should learn the game DevonRex Dec 2012 #14
Can you explain why the Pawns are in the front rank and not the Royalty bahrbearian Dec 2012 #23
Because Obama hates them. JoePhilly Dec 2012 #42
Chess!! cliffordu Dec 2012 #21
That's not the aspect being referred to when people use the expression treestar Dec 2012 #24
I wonder if in 2014 bahrbearian Dec 2012 #25
You and I are not in the big club pokerfan Dec 2012 #26
Perhaps an even larger font would be more convincing? Robb Dec 2012 #27
These politician are not playing games. Autumn Dec 2012 #31
That's all that needed to be said, but I'm sure the multidimensional brainfucking will continue. adirondacker Dec 2012 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Chess?»Reply #38