On a separate note.
 

Let me disappoint the horny readers by the following disclaimer: this article is about chess. A person with a perverted fantasy may literally experience such a pleasure, but with THAT level of imagination one doesn't need to read articles at all.
 

Back to the point.
 

A little bit about myself. Peter Zhdanov relates to my activity as "specific attitude towards chess". Others use different terms, but I prefer Peter's wording.
 

For example, I like finding generalizations of notions that seem to be unconnected to each other: cola and meat (both are edible), school and street (both can teach you something), chess and life (can't be explained within the boundaries of a single article).
 

I particularly like this process…
 

Similarly, I love finding the difference between seemingly identical notions.
 

A sniper and a person carrying a rifle, move pieces and play chess…
 

It's important to keep in mind that logical constructions should have real life applications.
 

Let's consider two notions: Love and Sex.
 

All adults believe they know what Love and Sex is. Some consider them to be synonymous, while others (including me) think that there is a great difference between the meaning of these two words.
 

IMHO the key difference between Love and Sex is that in the one case a constant result is vital, while in the other it is about the quality of the result. As for me, the difference is great. And what about you?
 

Now let's switch to chess.
 

Let me start off with a simple example.
 

Once in a local park my opponent was trying to flag me one game after another (the odds was 5 minutes to 1 in his favor). Then he became unsatisfied with the results and demanded a 5 min vs 30 seconds handicap! I have simply removed the board altogether and set up the requested time control on the clock. Why use a chess board at all in this case? The one who wins on flag wins the game. I was especially delighted by observing the faces of passer-byes who were confusedly staring at two idiots, both of whom were passionately hitting the clock. Frankly speaking, the show didn't last long: a friend of mine came along, and I resigned. While I believe my behavior was right, I am still somewhat sad as I believe I could have still beaten the dude even in this "game".
 

Please keep your associations and suggestions on how this game could be named to yourself. I will act likewise.

Now a more complicated example:
 

You won two games. The first one - after a terrible blunder by your opponent in a position where you were lost; #2 - after a complicated positional struggle you won with a brilliant mating combination. Would you consider these two wins to be equal?
 

Or here is another situation (#3): your plan was deep, decisions - excellent. You got a winning position and...blundered a mate in 1 in time trouble. How would you evaluate this case?
 

Which game would you like most - ¹1, ¹2 or ¹3?
 

My personal favorite is ¹4 – a game which I lost, although I played one of the best games (in terms of quality) in my life.
 

Btw, recently I expressed my gratitude for a worthy lesson at the board to my opponent after the game, and he was genuinely surprised! Now it was my turn to become surprised.
 

To sum it all up, I would like to say that, if I am not confusing things, the argument between quality and essence has been going on since the ancient Greece, when one fraction of mathematicians was claiming that two different identities (e.g. an elephant and a fly) can't be expressed by the same number - 1.

Now you know which party prevailed.
 

On the other hand, sages from the East used to say that lack of action is also an activity. 
 

Any by far not the most passive.
 

So can 0 sometimes be more than 1?
 

Or is "a dead lion worse than a living dog"?

	1. Written by Peter on 17:40 22 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2011 ã.
	 öåëîì, èíòåðåñíî è çàñòàâëÿåò ÷èòàòåëÿ çàäóìàòüñÿ.    Òîëüêî îáðàç ëþáâè è ñåêñà íàòÿíóòûé. Íà ìîé âçãëÿä, íåêîððåêòíàÿ àíàëîãèÿ.    Òàêæå õîòåëîñü áû ñêàçàòü, ÷òî íàìåêàòü íà ïðåëåñòè ïîäõîäà «áëàãîðîäíûé ó÷åíèê» (ïî Ðîóñîíó), êîãäà äëÿ ñîõðàíåíèÿ ñîáñòâåííîé ñàìîîöåíêè ïîñëå ïîðàæåíèé ïîëàãàåòñÿ âñåì îáúÿñíÿòü, ÷òî «çàòî ìåíÿ ÷åìó-òî íàó÷èëè», «áåç ïðîèãðûøåé íå áûâàåò âûèãðûøåé» è ò.ä., äîâîëüíî-òàêè îïàñíî. Ïðåäïî÷òèòåëüíåå çîëîòàÿ ñåðåäèíà, êîãäà ÷åëîâåê ëþáèò èãðàòü â øàõìàòû, íî ðåçóëüòàò äëÿ íåãî òîæå âàæåí. Ò.å. íå ñòîèò ñëèøêîì äðàìàòèçèðîâàòü è áèòüñÿ ãîëîâîé îá ñòåíêó ïîñëå íóëÿ, íî è ðàññëàáëÿòüñÿ («ïðîèãðàë, íó è ëàäíî») âðÿä ëè èìååò ñìûñë, åñëè èäåò ðå÷ü î ïîñòàíîâêå êàêèõ-ëèáî çàäà÷ â øàõìàòàõ. http://pogonina.com

	2. Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 18:27 22 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2011 ã.

	3. Written by Þðèé on 09:59 23 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2011 ã.
	Ëþáîâü ê øàõìàòàì èëè ñåêñ ñ ôèãóðàìè? Ñëîâî -ëþáîâü ìîæíî ïðèìåíèòü áóêâàëüíî êî âñåìó.Ëþáîâü ê øàõìàòàì ñêîðåå ìîæíî ïðèìåíèòü êàê íðàâèòüñÿ èãðàòü è ïîëó÷àòü óäîâîëüñòâèå îò èãðû.À íàñòîÿùàÿ ëþáîâü çàðîæäàåòñÿ íà íåáåñàõ -à óìèðàåò íà Çåìëå. Ïðèâåäó ïðèìåðû êàê äîñòè÷ü è ïîëó÷èòü íàñòîÿùóþ ëþáîâü. Äåñÿòü Ñåêðåòîâ Ëþáâè. Ñåêðåò ïåðâûé-ÑÈËÀ ÌÛÑËÈ. Ñåêðåò âòîðîé-ÑÈËÀ ÓÂÀÆÅÍÈß.Ñåêðåò òðåòèé-ÑÈËÀ ÄÀÐÅÍÈß.Cåêðåò ÷åòâåðòûé-ÑÈËÀ ÄÐÓÆÁÛ.  Ñåêðåò ïÿòûé-ÑÈËÀ ÏÐÈÊÎÑÍÎÂÅÍÈß.Ñåêðåò øåñòîé-ÑÈËÀ ÏÐÈÍÖÈÏÀ "ÄÀÒÜ ÑÂÎÁÎÄÓ" Ñåêðåò ñåäüìîé-ÑÈËÀ ÎÁÙÅÍÈß.Ñåêðåò âîñüìîé-ÑÈËÀ ÏÐÅÄÀÍÍÎÑÒÈ.Ñåêðåò äåâÿòûé-ÑÈËÀ ÑÒÐÀÑÒÈ.Ñåêðåò äåñÿòûé-ÑÈËÀ ÄÎÂÅÐÈß. C çàðåé âíóòðåííåãî ñâåòà ëþáâè âàøè áëóæäåíèÿ âî òüìå çàêàí÷èâàþòñÿ.Ñ óâàæåíèåì Þðèé Âîëêîâ. http://pogonina.com

	4. Written by Àëåêñàíäð on 20:35 23 ñåíòÿáðÿ 2011 ã.
	Ëþáîâü ê øàõìàòàì èëè ñåêñ ñ ôèãóðàìè? Ïîíÿòèå ëþáâè äàâíî óæå òàê èñòàñêàëîñü è èçâðàòèëîñü, ÷òî ïî÷òè íèêòî è íå ïîíèìàåò, ÷òî ýòî òàêîå íà ñàìîì äåëå. Âûäàþò çà íåå ÷òî óãîäíî - ýìîöèè, ñòðàñòè, ïîõîòü, ðàñ÷åò. È ýòîìó àêòèâíî ïîìîãàåò õóäîæåñòâåííàÿ ëèòåðàòóðà, êèíåìàòîãðàô, òåàòð è òåëåâèäåíèå.

Write Comment

Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*