Chess?

[bvar22]

[font size=3]Isn't that a game where The Pawns are sacrificed to protect The Royalty?
.
.
.
.
.
.
It only sucks if you are a Working Class Pawn who depends on Social Security and Medicare.
The Royalty will never need it.[/font]





[font size=4]Hold On to Your Memories, SUCKERS!
...cause we're TAKING everything else,
and ain't NOBODY gonna stop us!
Hahahahahahahahaha!!![/font]

[ProSense]

1. Is that an image of the evil Obama?

What can we do to stop him?

We could protest!

Here's an example of how dead chained CPI is, and why it should be.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022048462

We could call him out for his evilness of his policies.

Increasing Medicaid Primary Care Fees for Certain Physicians in 2013 and 2014...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022047642

Obama Signs Children’s Health Insurance Bill

<...>

In a major change, the bill allows states to cover certain legal immigrants — namely, children under 21 and pregnant women — as well as citizens.

Until now, legal immigrants have generally been barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States. States will now be able to cover those immigrants without the five-year delay.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/us/politics/05health.html

Low-income state workers begin to gain access to Children’s Health Insurance Program

By Sarah Barr

At least six states have opened their Children’s Health Insurance Program to the kids of low-income state employees, an option that was prohibited until the passage of the 2010 health-care law.

This relatively small step has as its backdrop years of debate over the program, known as CHIP, including concerns that it encourages states — and consumers — to replace private insurance with taxpayer-subsidized coverage.

Now, as a result of the policy change, families of lower-income state workers who have struggled to pay for family coverage can qualify for the program. CHIP, which is jointly financed by the states and the federal government, provides coverage to the uninsured children of families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private insurance.

The federal government had closed that option to most states when CHIP was established in 1997, because of concerns that it might be an easy way for financially strapped states to shift the costs of some public-employee health benefits to the federal government. Federal employees were allowed to enroll their children.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2011/11/04/gIQAeDvotM_story.htm

[Scootaloo]

4. Well, you know... you just can't trust "their kind" n/t

[bvar22]

9. No. That wasn't posted as an image of our President.

That is an image of the WINNERS over the last 25 years who benefit from:

* "Free Trade"

*Wall Street Bailouts,

*de-regulation and faux re-regulation,

*Media Consolidation

*Mandated For Profit Health Insurance,

*Military Spending,

*Armed Military "Contractors"

*Foreign Wars,

*The War on Drugs,

*Free Passes for War Profiteers and Wall Street Criminals,

*Privatization of Prisons and Charter Schools,

*Keystone Pipelines

*Fracking

*Private Voting Machines and Tabulators with secret programing

*Low Taxes on the Wealthy
(39.5% IS historically LOW Taxes on the Rich)

You get the picture.
I don't believe President Obama runs with THAT crowd,
but I DO believe that those pigs have an immense amount of power over what CAN and Can't be done from the White House.
Though I DO wish our President would Call Them Out like FDR did
instead of trying to find Middle Ground for Compromise.

If he DID that,
an ARMY, including myself, would have his back,
and HISTORY would record him as a GREAT President.
[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=5]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[slackmaster]

2. Checkers

[leftstreet]

3. CHECKMATE

[forestpath]

5. K&R

[Tx4obama]

6. ...

[Egalitarian Thug]

7. An oldie, but a goodie.

?w=630

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[lastlib]

8. As a chess player, I NEVER sacrifice pawns.....

...they're too important--they're potential queens, and potential game-winners.

[bvar22]

10. You say you play Chess,

...and have NEVER sacrificed a Pawn?

Next Question:
have you ever WON?
...because if you NEVER sacrifice a Pawn, you would be laughably easy to beat.

The GREAT players like Bobby Fischer sacrifice Pawns.... all the time.

"Thinking along the same lines to accomplish the goal Fischer was aiming at: to dominate the dark squares and flow in pieces, sacrificing material to do it, knowing well the material will be regained once the pieces are on the right squares. Much like Bobby Fischer, computers dominate the chess world today and chess players study them, and are beginning to think like them. Computers don't have fear, they don't have "conventional wisdom" and they don't worry about sacrificing pawns to flow pieces into squares. They have no emotional attachment to pieces."

http://poloniachessclub.blogspot.com/2011/04/chess-bobby-fischer.html

[lastlib]

15. can't say I haven't made mistakes and lost a few, but never DELIBERATELY just give one away....

if I'm going to give up a pawn, I want something for it--at LEAST another pawn, or preferably something larger; sometimes a strategic square is the trade-off. But I NEVER just toss one to the winds!

And no, I don't claim to be a master, but I've won a few games against competent players.

[bvar22]

22. "just giving one away" is NOT a "Sacrifice",

...and I didn't claim that.

Though the article I posted above DID claim that Bobby Fischer did indeed just give some pawns away to get them off the board and out of his way to open a tactical advantage.

[font size=3]Chess is a game where Pawns are sacrificed to protect the Royalty[/font]
is not a definitive description of the game,
but is certainly a valid statement about the game.

It IS a common enough occurrence that Wiki has a definition:

"In chess, a sacrifice is a move giving up a piece in the hopes of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_%28chess%29

...and common enough the the term "Sacrificial Pawn" has entered the common lexicon.

[JoePhilly]

11. You clearly have no idea how chess is actually played.

And yes, I saw your reference to one statement on pawn sacrifice by Fischer, above.

In that reference you ignore the REASON he puts forward for sacrificing a Pawn. Because you don't understand his reasoning.

Fischer loved to play what is called a "Gambit". Its a move in which he appears to DARE the opponent to take a piece. Gambits worked well for Fischer because he often saw a way to regain the advantage significantly. And so, what appeared to be Fischer "giving away" a piece, was actually Fischer setting a trap down the road which ensured him victory.

The OP of course thinks one just sacrifices pawns. And you seem to agree.

That is not how real chess works. I've summarized how pawns are actually used here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2050240

[bvar22]

12. Gish Gallop Nonsense.

If you had this choice:

Lose a Queen

OR

Lose a Pawn and put your opponent in Mate with your rook,

What would YOU do?

[font size=5]BU-Bye Working Class Pawn!!!
& Victory Party for the Royalty!!![/font]

ANYTHING else is pure BULLSHIT.
YOU know it,
and everybody reading this thread KNOWS it.

[JoePhilly]

13. The fact that you do not (can not) understand chess, does not make it a "Gish Gallop" event.

I mean maybe from your perspective, Chess is nothing but a "Gish Gallop" event, but that appears to be because you don't understand Chess in the first place.

So, from your perspective ... its all gibberish.

Your problem in making that claim is that chess, both tactics and strategy, are actually very well understood. Its only a "Gish Gallop" for those who don't understand Chess in the first place.

[bvar22]

17. Hey, Joe Philly....

[font size=4]
Everybody who has ever played Chess HAS indeed Sacrificed a Pawn to protect their Royalty.[/font]

Will you try to dispute the above claim?
You "claim" to be knowledgeable about the game of Chess.
Have you NEVER sacrificed a Pawn?

What made you response Gish Gallop was the failed attempt to dilute the the OP by dumping non relevant information into the dialog.

I stand by the OP:
[font size=4] Chess IS a game where Pawns are sacrificed to protect the Royalty.[/font]

THAT is a valid description of the game,
and occurs routinely in almost EVERY game of Chess.

Anybody who is reading this thread can check this out themselves by looking up the definition and etymology of the term "Sacrificial Pawn",
or by picking up a book of Beginning Chess where the Sacrificial Pawn WILL be discusses in the first few chapters,

OR

they can believe your claim that Pawns are NEVER sacrificed to protect the Royalty in the Game of Chess.

"In chess, a sacrifice is a move giving up a piece in the hopes of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms. A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_%28chess%29

[lastlib]

16. Of course, I'd exchange the pawn for the win, but that's not a true "sacrifice."

That's not just throwing away a pawn. It's giving it up for a strategic purpose; there's a difference. It may be called a "sacrifice" as a shorthand term, but that's not really the whole truth of the matter. When you grasp that, please get back to us.

[JoePhilly]

18. I'd love to play a game of chess with you.

You correctly note that a "sacrifice" is really NEVER an actual sacrifice. Its a STRATEGIC move.

What happens here on DU is that a STRATEGIC move, is viewed only based on its immediate TACTICAL relevance.

A "sacrifice", when it does occur, is in fact a strategic TRADE.

Get back to me if you disagree.

[hfojvt]

32. okay I just won a game of chess against level 8 on the computer

the computer places the captured or killed piece on each side of the board.

On my side, I lost 4 pawns and one rook.

On the other side, the computer lost - two pawns, two bishops and a knight, as well as the king.

This programs, for whatever reason always falls for that trap. When it has a knight at F6 and another at D4. If offered, it will take the pawn at F6-G4. When queen takes knight, the other knight can check at C2 and take the rook at A1. To the computer, this looks like a good trade, it gets a pawn and a rook for a mere knight.

Except for a couple of things. First, my bishop goes C1-H6 threatening mate, or if he advances the pawn to G6, then bishop takes rook and his other knight is still trapped in the corner.

The point is though, that even with a strategic move, there will usually be a lot of pawns who gave their last full measure of devotion.

Make sure to send their fiancees letters saying that they died as heroes.

[JoePhilly]

34. So what you just explained is a computer program that appears to make decisions

based solely on the material value of the pieces. Which means it does not think about any strategic advantage other than points.

The position and move sequence you describe appears to allow you to gain a strategic POSITIONAL advantage and a tactical TIME advantage.

Also, I'm pretty sure that your chess program does not remove the other player's king from the board when you obtain checkmate.

This is because its your opponent's move, the king is in check, but there is no position to which the king can move in which it escapes check. As such, the opponent's king can't move at all.

So the game ends, and you never get to actually capture the opponent's king. You might want to spend $20 and get ChessMaster.

Oh, as for sending letters ... by winning the game, you demonstrated that what you gained (the win) was worth the concessions you made. If you lost, then your concessions were wasted.

Which appears to be where Boehner now finds himself. He appears to have no moves left. Meanwhile, Obama has both a time and positional advantage.

[bvar22]

19. That is close enough for the OP to be a valid statement.

[font size=4]Chess IS a Game where Pawns are sacrificed to protect Royalty.[/font]
That statement is not a complete, definitive description of the Game of Chess,
but it IS a valid statement.

The "strategic purpose" you reference is Winning the Game,
and having the last remaining KING is the overall strategic objective.
Pawns are routinely sacrificed in almost every game to produce that results.

I've never heard of someone sacrificing their King to protect their Pawns.
Have you?

[Chorophyll]

28. Hey guy? Your large bold type makes me instantly skip over everything you post.

Just so you know.

[bvar22]

29. I really don't care what you "skip over".

I usually Skip Over everything that doesn't address the substance of a post,
but I made an exception for you today.

[Chorophyll]

30. The substance of your post, such as it was, was lost in your screaming.

But whatever.

[bvar22]

33. When dealing with the impaired,

....Large, Bold fonts are effective.

Anyone attempting to argue that Chess is a game where pawns are NOT sacrificed to protect the Royalty
IS suffering from an impairment.

[JoePhilly]

35. lol. Bobby Fischer is that you????

[bvar22]

36. Bobby Fischer?

"Amazing!! Fischer would just mercilessly pound on his opponent’s King side defenses, sacrificing pawns and pieces whenever necessary. His games are just incredible to watch."

http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=90

That guy?
He sacrificed Pawns,
so he couldn't possible know anything about Chess like YOU do.

[JoePhilly]

37. Which is why I asked if you were he.

See, Fischer was well known for gambits that would allow him to gain positional and initiative advantages at the expense of material (aka, points). Such gambits include sacrificing all sorts of pieces before your opponent has "developed" their pieces.

For Fischer, he realized that the material deficit he faced could be mitigated while the opponent's pieces were still stuck on the back rank. He also knew that if he failed to win quickly, or to regain the material lost, he'd be in trouble.

So, his gambits often provided him a brief window in which his positional and initiative (ability to attack) could allow him to either checkmate the opponent or regain the material lost.

Now, the problem is that this approach is not one that dominates high level chess. The majority of high level chess players do not sacrifice pieces in the manner that Fischer did. Fischer is in fact one of the few chessmasters who have been able to dominate the game using that approach.

In the OP, you suggest that sacrificing pawns in a significant part of what chess is. You are wrong.

Using that approach will generally cause you to lose ... unless of course, YOU are Bobby Fischer.

Which I doubt since he died a few years back.

[bvar22]

38. No. You ARE distorting what I said in my OP.

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]

[99Forever]

40. Did you really say that?????

Where's your sarcasm smilie?


Wow.


What a condescending pantload.

[JoePhilly]

41. No sarcasm was needed.

As I said, most of those using the chess analogy, whether pro-Obama or Anti-Obama, appear to have no idea how chess is actually played, and as a result, the analogies used, tend to be silly.

Its not condescending to point that out. Its just the truth.

[99Forever]

43. Oh please.

I started playing chess at age 8, in my 30s I got 3d set from the Franklin Mint and it didn't just sit in the box gathering dust. You really aren't that bleepin' special.

The analogies are just fine and you aren't the only soul on this site that has played.

The word pompous comes to mind.

[DevonRex]

14. Perhaps you should learn the game

prior to commenting on it. Might just save you some embarrassment in the future.

[bahrbearian]

23. Can you explain why the Pawns are in the front rank and not the Royalty

I'd love to play you if you think that the pawns are too valuable to loose. They protect the King.

[JoePhilly]

42. Because Obama hates them.

Or, because it puts them closer to the 8th rank.

[cliffordu]

21. Chess!!

[treestar]

24. That's not the aspect being referred to when people use the expression

They are thinking about the strategizing and thinking many moves ahead.

[bahrbearian]

25. I wonder if in 2014

if they repugs are going to say Obama wants to cut your social security if they have any evidence? My Mom keeps harping the Fox news blurbs about the Democratic party want to cut her medicare and her SS . I quess this last offer from the President will set her straight.

[pokerfan]

26. You and I are not in the big club

From 2005....

"You know what they want? Obedient workers ­ people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork but just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And, now, they're coming for your Social Security. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back, so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it. They'll get it all, sooner or later, because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."

[Robb]

27. Perhaps an even larger font would be more convincing?

Alternately, you might consider requiring a two-drink minimum. Or big red shoes and a squirting tie.

[Autumn]

31. These politician are not playing games.

They are protecting their interests at the expense of our interests. Chess, poker Charlie Brown football? That's all fucking bullshit. nothing more than people giving them cover.

[adirondacker]

39. That's all that needed to be said, but I'm sure the multidimensional brainfucking will continue.

Thanks for stating the obvious to some.