on computers in chess

They just cannot make realistic computer opponents that don't give up pieces at the first sign of trouble. I was playing in Chessmaster against one of their opponents nominally rated at like 1950, which is certainly stronger than I am. I had a winning position in a bishop endgame, I was about to penetrate on the kingside, but he had some counterplay and it wasn't sewn up at all. But it would be tricky. The computer's response was to trade his bishop for a pawn. It seems that whenever the computer gets into a tricky position and it's trying to play weakly, it just gives up a piece. This is not realistic, no human player, especially not one rated 1950, would make that particular mistake.

Slightly more annoying is the recap they give at the end and the annotations: since the computer never resigns, one must play through to mate. They have a "worst move" and "missed mates" feature, and their utility is hampered by the fact that I don't care to play the absolute most accurate way when I'm a rook up, so if I lose a pawn or take 10 moves to mate instead of 5, those show up, but I really only care about the part of the game before I got my decisive advantage or where my opponent got the decisive advantage, not where the evaluation changed from +80.31 to +50.32 (FYI, +1.00 is usually winning).

on weak computer opposition

Computers, of course, can play at very high level these days. They aren't strategic geniuses yet, but they have impeccable tactical sense. The hardest problem is to come up with realistic weak opposition for lower-level human players to brush up against. So, I recently purchased the latest Chessmaster software. It's not the strongest computer program available (though it certainly is grandmaster-strength) or the best in terms of, well, various other metrics chess players use. What differentiates it is that it's pretty much the most user-friendly, especially for beginners. I bought it because it was on sale and it's supposed to be fairly good at what I really needed: providing a bunch of opponents of various strengths to play against.

So, to get back in shape a little bit, I set up to play a tournament of G/60s against a bunch of weak opponents, just to get used to playing at longer time controls before using so much of my day against strong opponents. But, come on, a 1500-rated opponent hung a piece on the fourth move. Now, 1500-rated players occasionally drop pieces, even when they're playing at a long time control. But not on the fourth friggin' move. The opponent gave up a piece for a pawn later, as well. Up two pieces for free. I mean, I know 1500 is weak, but it's not "hang a piece on the fourth move" weak. But that's what it's like.

finished my first pass through CT Art.

For those interested, I finished my first pass through CT Art, a computer program containing 1200 or so tactical chess problems. I mostly worked by "skill level" rather than by theme. I'll post my score breakdown below because I don't really see anybody else doing so. Overall, I had a success rate of 69% and a "rating" of 2420. Note that on a couple of these, I went back over "erroneous", so the percentages are slightly higher than on the initial pass, but level 50 and up is straight.

By Skill Level
10. 99% (originally 93%)
20. 91% (originally 86%)
30. 78%
40. 69%
50. 66%
60. 60%
70. 57%
80. 56%
90+. 55%

Levels 10 and 20 were initially a few percentage points lower.

Note that the "rating" provided has little correlation with real rating. I'm probably a weak class B player at the moment, in case you're wondering, though my real rating is public information if you really want to look it up.

Advice for Orthodox Converts

Far be it from me to give advice to any, since I am the chief of sinners and, in most things, the most profitable advice would be to not do what I have done. Still, at various times, in my all-too-brief experience in chilling with Orthodox converts and other sorts, I have been on the receiving end of bits of wisdom which could appropriately be directed to myself which you may find profitable as well.

1. Don't be so "emo". For those of you not quite familiar with the popular jargon of modern youth, call to mind those roustabouts at the mall wearing tight jeans and having long hair on top of their heads and nowhere else: those people are "emo", but it's more than a fashion statement. Relax a little.
   
2. Try to get over being a convert as soon as possible. That is to say, don't ever forget where you came from, but try to get over the fact that you were once not Orthodox as soon as possible. Quit defining yourself in opposition to (viz.) the satanic delusion of Protestantism and start thinking of yourself as Orthodox. Orthodoxy stands on its own without reference to any external system. For a while, you may have to stand on the crutch of opposing yourself to your past, but, seriously, defining yourself as not Protestant is not the same as apophaticism. You should eventually get over it. There's a place for polemics. Odds are, it's not your place yet. Yes, you. I mean you. You. Don't get defensive.
3. A good proportion of male converts want to be priests. A good proportion of all converts want to be monastics. Be realistic about it, don't be a Romantic. See #1. You may be legitimately called to either, sure. That'd be great. Don't be disappointed if you aren't, don't unrealistically think you are if you aren't. EDIT: most importantly, don't go telling everyone or alluding to it, at least not until you're sure.
   
4. You have nothing to offer the Church. It has plenty to offer you.
   
5. Huw had a great post where he mentioned something somebody told him when he was looking for a martial arts school:

   Are these people enjoying themselves? Are they welcoming? Is there a lot of ego on the mat? Are people trying to prove something?

   My point here is that, well, I know my ego's on the mat and I'm trying to prove something. This isn't good. Are you? Should we work on this? Knowing is half the battle.
   
6. Debates are poisonous to the soul, especially if you are compelled to respond to every point and win every argument. Chill a bit, especially if you're on the Internets where the records will exist forever and ever. Somebody once likened winning an argument on the internet to winning an event in the Special Olympics, which I find entirely mean-spirited: I have found in my few days on this earth that the winners of the latter are usually marvelous people from whom I could learn a lot. Not so the former by any stretch of the imagination. Let it go.
   
7. This may just be me, but I don't find my conversion story that interesting, nor do I find yours that interesting. They're all the same, even the ones that are different. In the hagiographies, the conversions of the saints usually barely occupy a paragraph. There are few notable exceptions. They are generally all alike. Usually, anything longer merely indicates you're long-winded or that you're no saint. I'd rather not hear about the latter case.
   
8. The Orthodox Church will not give you what you want or like or expect, it will give you a cross. There are some things you might think God would never allow happen to a Christian. They may happen. Christianity isn't a "system" that "works". There are few guarantees, and they're not the sort you'll like.
9. NEW ADDITION: If you find that you, a recent convert of at most a couple years, are explaining theology to someone who may have been born in the Church, or, my personal favorite, who is a priest, please look back and consider what you're doing.

Well, I wasn't completely honest. A lot of these really don't apply to me except tangentially, but they were certainly deemed wise by me when I heard them. I hope you find this post to be profitable and eagerly await correction if I am being wrong-headed about anything, only please be patient with me, since I did not exactly graduate at the top of my class, as it were.
Much love in the risen Christ,
gzt

Action Plan

Given my performance on the tactics test, I decided to pick up the Chess Combinations Encyclopedia so I could work heavily on those areas where I am deficient. It seems to have the ability to slice and dice the way I would need. My other deficiencies, as pointed out in the previous test, are adequately addressed in the materials I already have. I'll provide a review and results when I get it.

more chess

Based on my results on the overall test (which were illuminating), I decided I should take the tactics test. The results were amazing (as opposed to merely illuminating). They were, overall, quite good (around 1800ish), but, on drilling down, that figure proved very misleading. I was rated over 2000 (!) in several areas, peaking at 2360 (!!) on one, but had abysmal scores on others (low of around 1270!!). That, my friends, is a big variation. It also clearly indicates where the least application of effort will yield the biggest results and where it would be fruitless, at the moment, to push forward.

EDIT, FURTHER RESULTS: After looking more carefully, it seems I'm very good at immediate tactics and not very good at preparatory tactics. That is magnificent. Brilliant! That is my problem in a nutshell. Good at the quick, easy, superficial things, not good at the stuff that requires a little more depth and complex synthesis. Illuminating, revealing, and completely thematic. The scales have fallen off my eyes.

Stuff Orthodox Converts Like

So, the other day, I discovered Stuff White People Like. If you're not familiar with it, apparently white people like Graduate School, The Idea of Soccer, Whole Foods, Wrigley Field, and Coffee. Well, fair enough. I had the brilliant idea of doing my own spin-off, "Stuff Orthodox Converts Like", but, alas, Lent begins tomorrow, and that sort of commentary is really not appropriate during a penitential season. You will have to wait until after Pascha to see why Orthodox converts like monks, antinomianism, and making fun of the West.

Chess is such a difficult game

There's so many pieces.

Well, I've been playing chess again. I took I am Coach's chess exam to get a good gauge of where I stood in terms of playing facility, and I'm apparently playing a little over 1600 these days
(respectable, but not particularly good). Honestly, though, the best advice I got as a result of this was that I should be doing 80% playing and 20% studying, but I simply don't have the time or will to get a good game in. It's easier to spend 20 minutes on the train reviewing. Which is fair enough, because 20 minutes is too fast to play a serious game. Blitz will only ruin you. The results indicated that I was quite good at "standard positions" (that is, the typical textbook endgame positions), calculation, and endgames, in that order, which is what you'd expect from somebody who sits reading endgame manuals and twirling through long variations on the train. However, I did rather dismally at strategy and the middlegame. Though I know the theory and have worked a bit on it, that really is the sort of thing that comes with practice, with actually sitting at the board for a few hours playing a game several times a month. Despite all my tactical practice and bouncing around on that problem site, my tactical score was also fairly shoddy. That may be from a couple months' worth of rust, however. Time will tell.

UPDATE: I think this really has been helpful, because it does really show me that my work yields results. I was working on endgames, particularly standard positions, and my results indicated that I am strong in those. There we go. Action does, in fact, lead to results.

a love letter to SUMPRODUCT

With shoutouts to INDEX, MATCH, and OFFSET.

All seriousness aside, it is amazing how much a smart application of a few simple functions in tandem can make you appear smart and efficient without requiring you to be so.

News for the curious

My progress in Russian lit continues. I'm on Pushkin at the moment, just his short stories. I should do Onegin and Godunov, I really should, but I'm not. Which reminds me, I just noticed that the name of the band "Modest Mouse" is probably a play on Mussorgsky. My chess has waned slightly, but I'm back to playing a little again. I sort of stopped while studying for that exam and did not quite get back on the ball. I played on the train previously, but now that time is reserved for reading. Such is life. I've been thinking about breaking out my guitar and that book again, it's been a few years and the neck is slightly warped, but I should be able to manage until I can fix or replace the thing. I suppose instead of this new project I should be learning more financial mathematics and looking for a new job in case they don't give me enough giant sacks of cash at my current one. Well, fair enough. Maybe. But I already own the books, the guitar, the chess sets, and what-have-you. If it comes down to it, it won't cost me anything to lay them aside temporarily since I didn't just go out and buy them.

Started on Gogol, already confused

UPDATE: In retrospect, I suppose the Russian role in the Greek Revolution wasn't that small, and then one considers the Russo-Turkish war immediately following it, so I suppose it makes sense that some provinicial who had some sort of military service could for some reason have paintings of figures from the Greek Revolution around the house. It's odd, but not incomprehensible.

I started on Gogol's Dead Souls because it quite fortunately arrived in the 12/31/07 post, but I am already slightly confused one of the characters. Mikhail Semyonovich Sobakevich (last name, of course, derived from "dog") is portrayed as being a bear whose furniture is essentially miniature versions of himself. What is incomprehensible: why does he have all those paintings of figures from the Greek Revolution? It seems rather random, despite the Russian involvement in the revolution. I have no problem with nonsense and randomness, but usually there is either some possible thread tying it together or it is completely nonsensical; what is hard to endure is something that may have some sense behind it which I cannot understand yet.

For Thou art our God and we know no other than Thee

Having beheld the Resurrection of Christ, let us worship, the holy Lord Jesus, the only Sinless One! We venerate Thy Cross, O Christ, and Thy Holy Resurrection we praise and glorify; for Thou art our God, and we know no other than Thee; we call on Thy name. Come, all you faithful, let us venerate Christ's Holy Resurrection! For, behold, through the Cross joy has come into all the world. Let us ever bless the Lord, praising His Resurrection. By enduring the Cross for us, He destroyed death by death!

The phrase in the title has been sticking in my head lately. It feels like it should come from the Psalms or at least something in the Scriptures, but I cannot quite find the reference. All my googling seems to turn up is this above hymn to the Resurrection and various other Orthodox sources which are clearly derivative. Even as vague a search as "you are our god" "know no other" (or with "Thou" appropriately substituted) does not have much luck. So, help on sources for this phrase (if any exist) would be appreciated. Obviously, the sentiment is found all over the Old Testament since it is the major theme of the work, but I want to find it expressed with these phrases in close proximity or in similar words.

Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, il sait porter la croix.

I was surprised at how different the French is from the English. Well, I certainly do prefer the French.