Pesco47 wrote:Piece advantage is meaningless if it's anything less than a knight or bishop.
No, that's just wrong. Winning as little as a Pawn in the early game can lead to a game win.
Winning pawns isn't worth the loss in board control in the opening game.
SensFan wrote:
Pesco47 wrote:I said earlier that I would not favour trades, the only time this will be accepted, is when we gain board advantage as a result.
I think that's the wrong mentality to take. With more pieces on the board, there are more oppportunities for traps and sneaky play, which directly favours black. If we simplify the board position, the extra heads gain the advantage.
No matter what the number of pieces on the board, extra heads will still be better than however many players that are thinking for black. The equal tools available to us in the chessboard means that any board-related advantage black has, we also have. If there's a disadvantage for us, they'll also suffer from it.
Pesco47 wrote:Piece advantage is meaningless if it's anything less than a knight or bishop.
No, that's just wrong. Winning as little as a Pawn in the early game can lead to a game win.
Winning pawns isn't worth the loss in board control in the opening game.
I'll take a pawn over a slight board control loss.
Pesco47 wrote:
SensFan wrote:
Pesco47 wrote:I said earlier that I would not favour trades, the only time this will be accepted, is when we gain board advantage as a result.
I think that's the wrong mentality to take. With more pieces on the board, there are more oppportunities for traps and sneaky play, which directly favours black. If we simplify the board position, the extra heads gain the advantage.
No matter what the number of pieces on the board, extra heads will still be better than however many players that are thinking for black. The equal tools available to us in the chessboard means that any board-related advantage black has, we also have. If there's a disadvantage for us, they'll also suffer from it.
Black has a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE advantage in privacy. We have absolutely no capability to set any form of trap. With a bunch of pieces on each side, black can pick off our pieces 1 by 1 for sure. If we can simplify it to some pawns and a few minor pieces each, we'll have a huge advantage.
(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record
I hope you realise how much more difficult it is to play a pawn endgame than a knight or bishop endgame.
And because black has their privacy, they can and will exploit any weakness in board position to turn the game un-winnable for us. White calls the shots with board dominance.
Your comment about taking pawns at a loss of board control tells me that you'd take a piece because it looks like it's for free. That's the kind of mentality that will lose us the chess game.
Pesco47 wrote:I hope you realise how much more difficult it is to play a pawn endgame than a knight or bishop endgame.
And because black has their privacy, they can and will exploit any weakness in board position to turn the game un-winnable for us. White calls the shots with board dominance.
Your comment about taking pawns at a loss of board control tells me that you'd take a piece because it looks like it's for free. That's the kind of mentality that will lose us the chess game.
FoS SensFan
We need to trade off or we will lose.
And yes, if I think I can solidify my board position afterwards, I will always grab a pawn in the early game.
(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record
We can trade off, but remember that we are trading pieces AND position. One side will always come off worse, I don't intend to let that happen to white.
The majority of chess games I have won involve me taking a pawn and converting that small advantage to a win in the endgame.
However, the grabbing a pawn vs. keeping superior position debate is really getting us nowhere. You can't really ever say one is always better than the other. It all depends on the specific situation. Sometimes grabbing a pawn IS superior board position because you can trade your way to a favorable endgame. Sometimes grabbing that pawn sacrifices your position so much that it ends up being the wrong move.
As far as trading pieces goes, my rule of thumb is to trade when you're winning and don't trade when you're losing. Secondly, I never trade pieces "just because I can" but only try to do so if it looks like it is a legitimate benefit.
Anyway... Nf3 still seems the best to me. It gives us a chance to push for control of the center with d4. Nc3 also seems fine, and I would be willing to compromise to make that play if no consensus can be reached.
As far as trading pieces goes, my rule of thumb is to trade when you're winning and don't trade when you're losing.
Secondly, I never trade pieces "just because I can" but only try to do so if it looks like it is a legitimate benefit.
That's the generally-accepted rule. I still think we need to err on the side of trading, though.
(11:04:10 PM) senspizzaline: That's actually my bold prediction for the year
(11:04:19 PM) senspizzaline: Miami finishes 2nd in the AFCE.
(11:05:35 PM) jhawk01b: my bold prediction for the year is that whoever wins the NFC West will have a winning record
Gonna just have to say "see goat's post" for the rest of the thread, I think.
I also sense possible distancing between Sens and Pesco, but that's so highly dependent upon a weak read that it's probably just my sinuses. And tangental.
Just piping in to say something I thought I had said already--I agree with whoever said that we should probably play a more defensive game than not... it will be easier to play that together than an aggressive one.
I will not assume everyone with blue eyes has Mako poisoning
I will not assume everyone with blue eyes has Mako poisoning
I will not assume everyone with blue eyes has Mako poisoning
The thing is, you can't really discuss future plans like this so unless someone here knows how I normally play off by heart (you've never even versed me or seen me before) then it's gonna be tricky to win with the CHESS side of things.
Doomsday wrote:The thing is, you can't really discuss future plans like this so unless someone here knows how I normally play off by heart (you've never even versed me or seen me before) then it's gonna be tricky to win with the CHESS side of things.
OTOH, our town can't really even get together to make the right move, so scum doesn't necessarily have to. We'll see.
I also suspect that, yes, it will be difficult for the town to win via chess, and we will have to end up scumhunting by determining who has been trying to mislead us or lead us into a trap.
Time to get our queen out? Or a bishop or another horse? I'd say, get our queen out before the horse, or get our right bishop out before moving the D2 pawn.
Leaving mafiascum temporarily or not due to circumstances
I recommend playing 3. f4. It's probably the best thing we have going for White now. It also has the added merit if avoiding the Closed Sicilian, and is not very well known (for now). 2. f4 would have been dangerous for us, which is why I didn't suggest it earlier.
