If-conditional

Question

Hello.What tense of this conditional is and what does it mean?   'I could get an advantage in space if my opponent's not careful.'?Thanks in advance!

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

It is a non-past mixed conditional.  What words do you not understand the meanings of? I see no idioms.

Soheil1 · Answer

I mean why it is not "...if my oppponent was not careful"? and it is 'is' instead of 'was'?

What is a non-past mixed conditional and why is it used here?

Mister Micawber · Answer

It is mixed for effect, I presume.  The first part is more tentative than the second part: the speaker expects the carelessness, perhaps.

Regards · Answer

Hi,

soheil1I could get an advantage in space if my opponent's not careful.

Well, it appears to be a mixed conditional, but nevertheless I don't think the author really intended to write

could; can would have been a better choice there. I agree with MM that the first part reflects tentativeness to a

certain degree, but I still suggest that the sentence is not quite right as it stands.

With no further context, the meaning is obscure, then.

Regards

Fivejedjon · Answer

'I could get an advantage in space if my opponent's not careful.'

I don't agree that it's a mixed conditional. 'Could' is frequently used in place of 'can' for distancing in time (I could play the pano when I was five), directness (Could you lend me £10 please?) and reality/likelihood (I could see you tomorrow at ten).

"I can get an advantage in space if my opponent's not careful". We don't know if the speaker is talking about ongoing possibilities (i.e., every time they play) or a future possibility. In either case, the speaker is fairly certain of being able to get an advantage in the event of the opponent's carelessness.

If the speaker uses 'could' instead of 'can', it simply means that the getting of the advantage is seen as less certain.

My real problem is that I have no idea what an 'advantage in space' is.

Soheil1 · Answer

having more space to maneuvre

Henry74 · Answer

fivejedjonMy real problem is that I have no idea what an 'advantage in space' is.

It could be referring to a game of chess, where advantage is traditionally divided into space advantage, time advantage and material advantage.

H.

Soheil1 · Answer

Exactly, that is the definition of Janos Fleswh.My author adds the element 'the **** sttructure'.

Henry74 · Answer

I've always found that definition to be a good tool for beginners, especially in explaining opening principles. As your play improves though, it begins to fall on the semplicistic side. It doesn't focus on the difference betweem 'more space' and 'space advatage'. Material also has to be revised, when position begins to play a role in material count.
Since you mentioned **** structure, I also don't know why all other functions used to evaluate a position, such as King safety, square color weaknesses, etc., shouldn't deserve an advatage category. Perhaps the reason is simply because while a conversion between those three categories can be easily worked out, it is more difficult to quantify a conversion between the others.
Anyway, I think I'm going a little off topic here.

Soheil1 · Answer

See Dorfman's 'the method in chess'.It doesn't classify advantages as force,space,time as Dvoretsky or Flesch do;or even as force, time, space, **** structure as Seirawan does.He just goes on the track of his predecessor Steinitz.He name s the knig position as the most important element in static evaluation of the position.very good explanation of static vs. dynamic evaluation of the position, and then determining wether one has to play statically or dynamically.

Dorfman fan&advertiser!

If-conditional

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions