Here's a game i played, sadly with a quitter who played 2...Qd6. But nonetheless a good game, if i may say:
I'm particularly happy about 13. Ng5, which (in my opinion) was the the game-changer of this game.
What do you ladies and gentlemen think?
I don't know anything about you, your playstyle or your rating and I don't want to offend you, but this game is not a good one. 4...Q4+ is senseless. Why to give that check? And then 6.d5. I undertsnd that you want to reduce the mobility of the knight, but this pawn becomes a target. Until 13.Ng5 you played decent chess, I have to admit it. But let's talk about that move. I still can't find the idea behind it. It is a clean bishop. What caught me completely by surpise is that in a 60+0 game your opponent didn't capture it. Next, when 13...Nc5 was played, why didn't you played 14.Rb8+ probably winning the exchange (because your bishop is hanging)? Then you blunder your rook, with little compensation. But you punished very well his blunder 16...c5. All in all, you have margins of improving. This is my opinion and a short analysis of the game. Not something to rely completely on, but it is something. Thank you for attention.
Although Frege’s work shows the enormous potential of logical analysis, it is not incompatible with other forms of analysis. Indeed, its whole point would seem to be to prepare the way for these other forms, as philosophers in the second phase of analytic philosophy came to argue (see The Cambridge School of Analysis). One such form is traditional decompositional analysis—understood, more specifically, as resolving a whole into its parts (e.g., a ‘thought’ or ‘proposition’ into its ‘constituents’). Decompositional analysis does indeed play a role in Frege’s philosophy, but what is of greater significance is Frege’s use of function-argument analysis, which operates in some tension to whole-part analysis.
Thank you for your feedback @generaldimos.
Yes, clearly it wasn't a "good game" per se, i just meant that it was fun to play. And yes, there was blunders on both side but i took the opportunity and my opponent didn't so that's why i was "crowned" with 2-1-2 in analysis.
But anyway, very good input of you and thank you for your time!
@JOPAJEYLO What are YOU talking about, clearly not the game i posted...!!?
You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!