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.