4

I'd like to request that this question be reopened.

It was closed because some people are confused about what "defensive" means in chess - I meant to clear that up in an answer, but the question was closed before I could. It does however have definite meaning, and this question has a definite answer (in the sense that all masters would agree) - in fact @Shannon provided a pretty good answer, though its lack of examples may be why some people are still confused.


(For the curious: playing defensive in chess means playing reactively, and usually allowing your pieces to be tied up in defense - that is, giving your opponent the initiative. This is usually considered a bad thing, but it may be the right idea if you believe you are gaining a more important imbalance - for instance, you give your opponent the initiative in return for material, because you believe you can ward off his attack. However, there are times where playing defensively is akin to suicide ex. rook endgames. I intend to make this more clear with specific examples)

| |
  • I join Blue Raja to support the reopening of this question, and the incorporation of Blue Raja's excellent answer. I so voted on the original post (by Chandresh). Shannon John Clark also verbally supported the re-opening of the question as well (although technically his reputation is less than 500, so it is a moral support). Blue Raja's answer goes into the "psychology" of the game, a tag that has a definition provided today by yours truly. – Tom Au Jun 16 '11 at 20:01
  • well as of a few days ago my reputation is now over 500 so my verbal support can now be more than just verbal - just not sure what to do next – Shannon John Clark Jun 27 '11 at 17:44
3

If a question is closed, the StackExchange method of dealing with that is to edit it and lobby for it to reopen. That went a little awry here.

The question pointed to contains this

(Note: This is similar to a question that was closed.

When we should go for "Defensive" ..?)

I'm asking it again in a (hopefully) more acceptable way. If this is accepted, I would like to give the "props" to Chandra, the original author.)

Work with the original question, do not reopen the 2nd question while asking to give "props" (reputation I assume?) to someone else. That isn't possible. I am going to delete the 2nd question.

If you think the first question has merit, edit it and then lobby for votes.

| |
  • Fair enough. I meant to say, "port" my changes to the original. I'll try that, even though I don't have enough reputation to edit (at least on my own). I had even less when I did what I did. That's why I used a process that "went a little awry." – Tom Au Jun 17 '11 at 13:44
  • Somewhat to my surprise, the editorial changes I proposed were accepted on the original version. I have asked Lance Roberts to review them, and make any further changes he deems necessary. – Tom Au Jun 18 '11 at 17:24
2

While I voted to close, I would never have voted to delete this post. The questions should have been at least merged with the first, so that the answers were not lost. Duplicate questions shouldn't be deleted they should be closed, at most merged.

See SO Meta posts: here and here.

| |
  • I agree. In general, I think that there is a certain amount of merging that needs to be done on the site. THEN delete the extra version. But not before, because you lose information. – Tom Au Jun 17 '11 at 17:28
  • roberts: My understanding is that moderators can undelete questions. Why don't we ask Pat Ludwig to undelete the second version, "port" the answers over to the original, and the re-delete the second version if necessary. It's possible that you (Lance) have this privilege, with a reputation of just over 2000 (view moderators tools). – Tom Au Jun 18 '11 at 15:12
  • @Tom, no, you have to be a mod to undelete a question a mod has deleted, and to merge questions. Pat has our input, he can choose what he wants to do now. – Lance Roberts Jun 18 '11 at 16:31
  • Would you/have you voted to undelete the edited question? I invite you to make any further changes you need to feel comfortable with voting this way. – Tom Au Jun 18 '11 at 17:21
  • @Tom, they've changed the SE sites, so that if a moderator deletes a post, users can no longer vote to undelete. You can only vote to undelete a post that was closed by the poster himself, or closed by votes of the other users. See this meta post and upvote it if you'd like that to change. – Lance Roberts Jun 18 '11 at 17:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .