Problems using a Thesaurus

Is it my febrile imagination or do we have a dearth of really good reference materials to rely on? Take for instance the thesaurus. I'm going to stick to the tried and true which in my opinion revolves around printed definitions on plain old paper. Besides using the ordinary dictionary we can get access to a thesaurus. Thesaurus means "treasure house" in Greek and it's proven to be an accurate description of this useful resource.

Unfortunately the drawbacks to using this asset becomes manifest when we look at it more closely. For instance the number of reliable versions of the thesaurus is very low. There are some references pertaining to looking up associations...namely The Synonym Finder, Bartlett Rogett's Thesaurus, Webster's New World Thesaurus and the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus.

If you look more closely you'll find any of the titles I mentioned have problems listing descriptive associations. The most prodigious effort in this realm has to be awarded to The Synonym Finder, first published back in 1978 and has since become an established source of finding a rich array of words to substitute commonly used phrases. One issue surrounding this thick tome is the plain acknowledgment by the publishers of the arbitrary listing of synonyms to various entries. This becomes problematic for the writer and speaker because without a careful listing of words to choose from it becomes difficult for the user to decide which one to use.

This issue raises the unanswered question: who decides which word has the correct shading for a particular meaning? The lexicographer? The speech writer? The author? In light of this ambiguity it becomes paramount to look at these books more carefully. Another issue with The Synonym Finder is the lack of a cross reference. This becomes imperative in case the user can't locate the correct synonym in the main body of the book. This is yet another quandary because the editors choose not to list enough entries. Many times the word you pick to use is not listed but is mentioned in the index. This can help you find a better word listing to follow to find the right definition.

Try finding "incumbent" as a main entry in a lesser known paperback thesaurus. You probably won't find it. Blurbs listed on the back covers boast huge numbers of synonyms listed inside their references...but they usually don't warn the user to the lack of quality headwords to look up. Fortunately The Synonym Finder has a very large quantity of entries to choose from...nearly 70,000 words. Others, like the new Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus lists only 15,000. Unless your vocabulary is unusually prodigious you'll have a hard time locating the right word. The bottom line is it pays to find a thesaurus that lists enough headwords to select your favorite synonym.

Exposing these shortcomings to the thesaurus shouldn't discourage the user from using one. It should enlighten the individual to realizing their unique issues and overcoming them by using multiple sources. The more reference materials there are...the better choice the person will make when deciding on the right expression. So, happy synonym finding.

I found a brand new chess opening to use. It's pretty much by accident how I found it but I was searching through YouTube and found a curious lecture called "The Polar Bear System". This chess opening is based on The Bird's System championed by English chess master Henry Bird.

What I find exciting about this system is it doesn't require knowledge of theoretical tomes of moves to succeed. Just basic chess playing and some knowledge of how to respond to Black replying to the set number of moves in the Polar Bear System as it's called. The set moves are f4,Nf3,g3,Bg2,0-0,d3,c3 and Na3.

This unusual setup allows White to play against virtually any opening system Black chooses to respond with. The only opening this system is not prepared for unless you spend time studying is the From Gambit. Unfortunately, I've found by playing on Freechess.org that guests who respond to 1.f4 sometimes reply 1...e5...inviting a transposition to either the King's Gambit or into the From Gambit proper with 2.fxe5. I haven't had much success playing against Black who reply with moves from the From Gambit...but that's because I really haven't had time to study the From Gambit.

I think I'll purchase the e-book The Bird's System from Evcryman Chess site and re-learn the From Gambit before getting too deeply involved with the Polar Bear System.

I'm getting comments from players when they face the Polar Bear System saying it's very interesting and I'm fearful the experts will seize the moment and learn all about this new subsystem in The Bird's System and soon I won't be able to play against them anymore. :(

Anyway...I'm having alot of fun playing fast matches using 10 minute increments for both sides. What's really interesting is no matter how good Black is...the pawn storms from White become overwhelming and Black sometimes hang pieces. This has happened several times already and I've seen a tremendous increase in the white knight's power vs. the bishops in this one. The knights in The Polar Bear system are lethal.

I've learned from losing in this opening system not to post the light squared bishop on the g2 square if Black innocently plays Nc6 early in the game. If Black plays this move early in the game...my best response is to play d3 and open the diagonal for the white squared bishop to B5. Once I get the chance I should immediately play the bishop to B5 putting pressure on the c6 - e8 diagonal. Unless Black wastes a tempo on protecting the pawn structure by Bd7 to prevent me from ruining it I shouldn't hesitate in exchanging the White bishop for the knight on c6. The resulting pawn structure for Black makes it virtually impossible for him/her to respond effectively on the Queenside while White makes serious inroads on the kingside.

The resulting positions are very interesting and forces experienced players to think very carefully how to play against you with Black.