As the section proceeds, the lines become increasingly irregular in length and meter, giving the feeling of disintegration, of things falling apart. As the woman of the first half begins to give voice to her paranoid thoughts, things do fall apart, at least formally: We read lines of dialogue, then a snippet from a nonsense song. The last four lines of the first half rhyme, although they are irregular in meter, suggesting at least a partial return to stability.
Eliot is writing in a lower-class vernacular here that resists poetic treatment. This section refutes the prevalent claim that iambic pentameter mirrors normal English speech patterns: Line length and stresses are consistently irregular. The two women of this section of the poem represent the two sides of modern sexuality: while one side of this sexuality is a dry, barren interchange inseparable from neurosis and self-destruction, the other side of this sexuality is a rampant fecundity associated with a lack of culture and rapid aging.
Her association with Dido and Cleopatra, two women who committed suicide out of frustrated love, suggests her fundamental irrationality. Unlike the two queens of myth, however, this woman will never become a cultural touchstone.
Her despair is pathetic, rather than moving, as she demands that her lover stay with her and tell her his thoughts. The sisters are then changed into birds, Philomela into a nightingale. This comparison suggests something essentially disappointing about the woman, that she is unable to communicate her interior self to the world.
Nevertheless, if White did not have the strong reply Bf3, it could work out. It would be easy to explain that I made this otherwise terrible move because I overlooked But that is not the case.
I saw Bf3, but played 21…Nh5 anyway. In my mind, the solid advantage after …Ne8-d6 was not enough, and I needed to further unbalance the position by getting him to take on h5.
In the meantime I forgot that he might not have to take on h5. Another factor was somehow hoping that he would not see So basically after looking at 21…Ne8 and a few other moves for some time, I made the move 21…Nh5? A combination of illogic, lazy thinking, and apathy contributed to this move, which I regretted immediately after making.
Perhaps I still had some slight advantage after this move. Anyway, a tough struggle began where maybe my opponent missed some chances and also slipped into time pressure. By move 35 I once again had the advantage, and my opponent had only a couple of minutes on the clock.
I now made up for the idiotic 21…Nh5 move. The endgame after 35…Bxc5 does not lead anywhere, and meanwhile White is getting ready to unravel with Nb3 or By no means did I think that this move was winning for Black.
However, I understood that it was by far my best chance, and that it was extremely unlikely he could deal with the shock with no time on the clock. It turns out that the best defense was probably In time pressure my opponent tried to refute my move tactically by The game ended as follows:.
After the game my opponent happily analyzed with me along with a Bulgarian friend who was playing in the B- tournament. You don't see such good sportsmanship often! In the next game I played against a player rated named Sead Rasidovic. Yet again I got a very nice position from the opening, which was then followed by a clownish blunder:. Not only is h7 a fixed weakness and h6 a permanent, standing threat, but also the rook on h8 and knight on f8 are locked out of the game, while various pieces are tied down to defending e6.
While perhaps the move Qa4 was also a little shaky, I cannot believe that such a position could be playable for Black. However, after Ndf3 there is the obvious tactical blow 21…Rxf4 to be considered, since the bishop on g4 is unguarded. I did not miss this move, which had been in the air for several moves. However, since last August my concentration has been extremely poor and my thinking chaotic. In almost every game since then, absurd blunders and miscalculations have intruded, and this was no different.
Their purpose in the game of chess is to protect the more important pieces, and they can be sacrificed to save those pieces just as pawns can. There is a bishop in the game of chess, who represents the church.
It is no wonder that a figure that represented the concept of religion found its way into the game. A bishop was the name for a priest in the Catholic church who had risen through the ranks to a more powerful position.
In the game of chess, there are two bishops for each side. The queen is the only piece on the board during a chess game that represents a woman, and she is the most powerful piece of the game. In the game of chess, there is only one queen for each side. Many people do not realize that queens in medieval times often held a powerful, yet precarious, position.
The king was often guided by her advice, and in many cases the queen played games of intrigue at court. The machinations of queens working either for or against their kings are well noted in history throughout medieval times, and often she held more power than the king did. The king is the tallest piece on the board, and is as well defended on the chessboard as in medieval life.
In medieval times, the surrender of the king would mean the loss of the kingdom to invading armies and that could mean change for the worse.
The king is the most important, but not the most powerful piece in chess. If you do not protect your king, you lose the game. The next time you set up your chessboard and get ready to play a friendly game or two, think of chess as a history lesson. The pieces on the board represent a way of life that is no more, and the real life dramas that occurred in medieval times are now only a game.
0コメント