|
|
|
Topic: Need game with BxN preventing castling to use as an example.
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
One of my recent opponents wrote in his "about me" space.
"Jogue limpo: não troque o bispo pelo cavalo, apenas para me impedir de fazer o roque. Isso é muito baixo, demonstra que te a preocupas em só ganhar pontos. Sim, jogo pra ganhar, e dane-se os pontos, eu quero pensar. Quando você aprenderá que não se pode ganhar sempre...
Please play nice: do not replace the bishop for the horse, just to stop me from doing the castle. This is extremely low, shows that you have a concern only to gain points.Yes, play to win, and to hell with the points, I think."
I want to say that if BxN preventing 0-0 is the move that gives you the best chance to win (or avoid losing) than it is unsportmanlike to play an inferior move. However I am not sure that I understood what he wrote. My comment might not be relevant.
What do you think?
Oh if even if BxN preventing 0-0 was a bad move it will still help me clarify what my opponent intended to say.
|
|
|
I think he was saying about a particular game he had played. 
|
|
|
Sounds like a novice comment, why worry? If that was all it took to win...
|
|
|
WhyBish. The quoted text is in his stats page. He did not write anything specifically intended for phystutordotcom.
|
|
|
This is an interesting point, but I don't think that fair-play has anything to do with (correspondence) chess.
If one feels that g:f3 (or g:f6 for black) is a very weakening move, why don't they try to prevent it? It's not the opponent's "fault" for playing the best moves, be they inconvenient or not.
|
|
|
|
|
