How do the pawns fit into ql in the chess analogy? no +back..

They don't "fit" into the analogy because he's NOT MAKING one! He's using chess as a metaphor for QL, i.e., feigning attacks, drawing in an opponent, predictive strategies for longer term gains, etc.

++ brisk, well-written articles with consistent treatment of each player..NICE wordsmithery dude!

I was making a funny.

don't funny

Now's your chance to +back :P

hahah good one!

Well, not that I consider Wikipedia to be an entirely reliable source of information, but assuming that it is much more meaningful than you are I may anyway quote: "A metaphor is a figure of speech that constructs an analogy"
Cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

And even without looking that up your "objection" appeared to be the dumbest thing I've read online, in a long time and by a good measure.

Putting aside the ad hominem troll bait for a sec -- (how does one compare "meaningfulness" between me and Wiki? | "dumb?" how can statements be dumb? Oh, you mean me. :)) -- we could play the quote-from-Wiki game all day, e.g., here's another:

"A metaphor is more forceful (active) than an analogy, because metaphor asserts two things are the same, whereas analogy implies a difference."

You bring up a very nuanced point in English syntax: when to use "analogy" versus "metaphor," leaving the well-worn "simile" out of the discussion(thank you!).

Analogies as you know, can be useful to explain, say, how something works or operates by using something more familiar to the reader. So analogies usually invoke a more analytical tone than the more prosaic metaphor.

I believe that's the whole point of saying "chess game with rockets" -- you don't need to use chess to explain to the reader how QL works; however, using the chess metaphor does add another level of meaning to QL-play that a spectator might miss.

p.s. knew you were making a 'blague' Terifire -- harhar, pawns +attack Guard style!

So? You're confirming that "being a metaphor" implies "being an analogy". Plus something else maybe, but still. Specifically was all that ALL CAPS and italics emphasis of yours plain wrong, by your own understanding. It was a metaphor? Ok, then it's been an analogy alright.

Still more baffling though is that you not only tried to split words in a vain attempt at pseudo sophistication, and failed at that, but totally missed the main valid objection - that the the other and most powerful half of chess figures can very well +back, and does so in real chess games. And that it's quite alright for an analogy to not be perfect, as they generally aren't anyway, as long as it illustrates the main point.

You fixed some of that in your second post alright. Your first attempt was still, with all due respect, excruciatingly painful to look at.

Hmm, okay let me back up (hehe) a sec. Not sure where you're talking about when you say "ALL CAPS," but the italicized text is a quote from the Wikipedia article on metaphor. I can provide the link?

Not sure why you wrote: "...vain attempt at pseudo sophistication..." and ofc the bonus ESR word "failed" (seems to be more camouflaged ad hominem like when you wrote this bit of hyperbole, "excruciatingly painful to look at")

Since the objective tone of this dialogue has sunk to the personal level (and the fact that you don't know me), I should probably explain that I'm a native speaker of English with a Writing Minor/Journalism from Ithaca College (too long ago!). I just write the way I was trained. I look at words as fine tools with specific purposes. I apologize if my writing conveyed something other than my point: To contrast the use of "metaphor" with "analogy" NOT to prove who's right or wrong (silly).

Yes, a metaphor IS in a sense an analogy; however, they are two different words for a very good reason. In sports journalism you always hear the phrase "sports metaphors." Why? Well when you watch a basketball game do you really need an analogy to explain something difficult to understand about playing basketball?? No of course not.

Instead a writer wants to bring in a new, deeper level of meaning to what a spectator sees by use of a metaphor (and they can get overly poetic about it too!).

So I hope we both agree on this. We both have a firm grasp of how Quakelive is played right? Don't need an analogy to help us understand this game, correct? But have you ever thought of QL as a kind of chess match? Aha, welcome to the magical plane of metaphor! :)

p.s. go easy with those ad hominems man :) I know ESR can be adversarial, mercilessly sarcastic and adolescently flippant...but I try to be sincere and fair (and desperately need an editor!).

Regarding ALL CAPS etc: "... he's NOT MAKING one ... as a metaphor ..."
Where he in fact was making an analogy. In the form of a metaphor, maybe.

Which imo is still more of an analogy, because you can actually pinpoint the similarities quite precisely: both those games rely heavily on proper positioning and prediction. Which accounts for the brain part. Where a feature rather unique to quake would be the "aim", i.e. fine motor skills and fast reaction. Which makes for the "rockets" in "chess with rockets".

So there's actually no need to dive into vagueness, and make false distinctions between words. Where even making the right distinction, paper thin as it is, wouldn't clarify anything.

Well thanks for at least responding. *shrug*
I know when I'm listening to someone in an argument(the philosophical kind, not with the gf!) I repeat back some of what s/he says and respond directly to that in my reply. That helps the dialogue continuity and guides the topic on-target.

When I read your last reply I almost had to turn around and say, "Is he talking to somebody else?" i.e., arguing WAY past one another. That's cool, though. Well I guess we can agree to disagree.
From my experience in writing English, both in journalism and exposition, I disagree that there's a "paper thin" as you say, separation between "metaphor" and "analogy" or a "false distinction" as you also say. I apologize if my explanation was a "dive into vagueness," but I really tried to outline the distinction.

To avoid taking up more space in this thread, feel free to pm me for more clarification since you said I was vague in my last post. If English is your second(third?) language, then you received some really solid writing training. A little much with the hyperbole and rhetorical touches though -- they tend to mute the point and bog down debate.

peace!

Well, a distinction being paper thin or not certainly depends on the audience one is addressing. At least when desiring to be understood. And I don't believe we're attending literature class here.

Either way, if somebody calls a metaphor an analogy, in literature class or elsewhere, just don't say it was NOT an analogy. Maybe say it wasn't MERELY an analogy. For the sake of precision and correctness.

good solid work. gives you an overall picture of the games and who to watch for etc. gj.

for a split second i thought it said 2011 - THE YEAR OF THE GAME CHEATERS?

The year of the Sombra

nothing new, good work anyway...

"The Russian Quake 3 legend is worshipped by the community due to his gameplay, confrontations with dueling beasts like Fatal1ty"

Did i miss something here?

q4... but it does seem odd that he mentions q3 and fatality ...

meh.. cooller has played everyone so w/e

So in this case "confrontations" is that they duelled. Not that there was any drama?

how about z4-cooller drama? :D

why isnt navi mentioned in cs part? did i miss something?

edit: nvm i see he cleverly explained why he didnt mention them
sovietphobia

for a new chapter, tournaments and epic wins.

Epic wins? Boy I sure gotta read this. Otherwise a decent article.

well written article good for people who don't really know the scene

well written article good for people who don't really know the scene

Well written article indeed. However for those who have been watching IEMs, nothing new.

Tim “DaHang” Fogarty made his mark when he beat the Russian Anton “Cooller” Singov at IEM Dubai

DaHanG lost to Cooller in Dubai :/

oops! I forgot to delete that from the final draft it seems. Only wanted to quote the American Championship finals. Thanks for the correction. He only beat him on T9.

Thanks!