Now that it is over, I concede (in more than one way) that a certain someone was right about what I have been doing/the illusion I have been creating all the while.
However, my Intentions have been misread in a rather cynical manner. I would think that my Intention was to try to keep things easy lest I earn the displeasure of others in the long term. In other words, it was to be nice, or at least try to.
I am also somewhat amused (and disturbed enough) that my methods can be read
Nonetheless, this is a new idea to consider and think about.
A Chess Symbolism.
I read on somewhere (go Find it yourself) that the clever king protects his pawns instead of hiding behind them and sacrificing them.
No doubt there is merit to this statement, but this view fails to consider the reality that some things need to be sacrificed — and between a larger piece and a pawn, the king doesn’t have much choice, does he? Idealistically, no King should allow any piece to be taken. However, when one absolutely has to give up something (which is inevitable), it is common sense to sacrifice the small to keep the big.
Perhaps the pawn serves a purpose of distraction and the loss of pawns creates a facade which enables the chess-player to map out a grander scheme.
There are two morals of this story:
First, prioritize – though I’d argue that this mindset has caused many unnecessary sacrifices like sleep, free time etc which are important although not important to the “long-term” distant, can’t be seen now or for certain, objective.
Second and more importantly, if you don’t want to lose any pieces, don’t play chess. The answer to not having to make any sacrifices would be to lay off zero-sum games and competitions where people are out to get each other. The wisest King stays out of war.
What I’d like to know is the symbolism behind the pawn becoming the Queen/a more powerful piece by reaching the other side. I could understand a promotion to being a rook or knight for its achievement but to become a new queen?! O_o
I am also going to take a long “social holiday” from someone as a form of break for perhaps two weeks.
Not that it really is necessary, I exaggerate how bad it is on my part, though I’m not sure how bad it is from the other’s perspective. (I can be quite a pain/ass/pain-in-the-ass at times)
But for the lolz and to amuse myself (in addition to other reasons) I would anyway.
Besides i have had a habit of taking “social holidays” anyway (recall the “I’m Still In Boston” when i’m not) — its somewhat an extension of myselfdays.
There is no Ho day during holy week, there is only holiday.
Perhaps I should further extend this to a myself weekend. But I am somewhat concerned about someone downstairs who has not been feeling well…