<p>Positional Player: Create a weakness, use it to screw up his position or make yours better, then slowly and painfully mow him down while he watches his position hopelessly being nailed down.</p>
<p>Opposing player: How did this happen? Why do I feel like I’m losing? Can’t make a good move… What is this? NOOO! He just put all my pieces into prison and is about to throw them out to the dogs! What kind of… How did I let this happen? Son of a…</p>
<p>Tactical Player: Ooo, you just screwed up your piece coordination, boy. <em>Makes a move</em> Haha you just lost a knight. You thought you had him defended, did you? Looks like your eyes deceived you.</p>
<p>Opposing player: How the hell did you… Damn it! You sneaky and tricky son of a</p>
<p>I know DA FRENCH. I know endmoves. I know control the middle. </p>
<p>What I don’t know is how to win chess.</p>
<p>Oh, while on the topic of endmoves, I saw a guy with 3 Q and a rook (and a king ofc). The other guy had a rook and a K. 39 turns later, the guy lost 2 of the Qs. The game ended in a stalemate…</p>
<p><<Oh, while on the topic of endmoves, I saw a guy with 3 Q and a rook (and a king ofc). The other guy had a rook and a K. 39 turns later, the guy lost 2 of the Qs. The game ended in a stalemate…</p>
<p>Study chess and you will learn. It’s a very hard game.</p>
<p>So you play the French Defense, huh. Yes, in that opening, as Black, the correct thing is definitely to screw up the center. The plan is to let white set up a big center, then crack it down. But I guess you already knew… Very hard to do if you’re up against a strong player. If you fail, you end up with a cramped game. You do know what that means don’t you?</p>
<p>There’s a variation of chess called “Suicide” where each player tries to GIVE UP their own pieces as much as possible until all of his are gone. Whoever still has pieces left will lose in the end. The king is just like any other piece.</p>
<p>But in your situation she had a knight and won?? Not “Suicide.” Probably some varation that I don’t know about.</p>
</i>
<p>Start with “Of Grammatology” by Derrida, then move on to Baudrillard’s classic “Simulacra and Simulation” or Foucault’s “Discipline and Punish,” which contains an excellent treatise with examples on the proper execution of a Zweitkowski opening.</p>
<p>I have a switch that can turn me into one. Is socially awkward like physically socially awkward or everythingly (including cyberly). I’m pretty sure that no one can by cyberly socially awkward.</p>
<p>So about socially awkward and nerdy guys… I find them kinda endearing. But not the ones who are just hardcore nerds and don’t want anything to do with you. </p>
<p>I like talking to the ones who are nice, but just don’t know how to interact socially. I made friends with one in my math class (we sit in groups) and now he regularly insults me. I guess that’s his way of being…social and I should be happy that he opened up to me? haha. Anyways, they’re a breath of fresh air. It gets stuffy/boring talking to the so called popular guys. They all say the same things.</p>
<p>Duh, but against good players that requires the ability to recognize and counter a variety of openings, and to do that requires time studying. It’s not like I’m just moving random pawns forward. And I could pretty much pwn anyone at my school because of midgame skill and their inability to finish the game.</p>
<p>I’m not exactly lonerly. I’m just not talkative, and I’ve usually got several projects going in my head at all times. So when somebody starts talking to me, I’m tongue-tied until I can get my wits together. And I don’t enjoy talking for its own sake when nobody is really saying anything anyone needs to know. And pretty girls make me flinch. So unless I a: know her and b: have some reason to be talking to her, I’d rather just sit there and say nothing.</p>
<p>I really hope it isn’t…I just feel ehh when a girl rejects a guy because omg he’s <em>insert race</em> or whatever.
I mean I come from a super conservative family, but I don’t let a girl’s race to interfere with my love…</p>