Been a while.

How are you? I'm fine. I haven't written in a while because I don't have anything valuable to say. I'm in more of a position to listen. Or perhaps to hear, I don't listen very well (I don't hear well, either, really, but we can let that slide for now). I was lying about things being fine. Things are profoundly wrong. Or, rather, I am profoundly wrong. Evil, perhaps, is a better word there. This is hardly the time or place for this discussion, however. I just wanted to let you few faithful readers know I am alive and, since this web-log is often touching on theological matters, why I am not really speaking about them: it is because I really am in no position to do so. I suppose I should clarify, since people can take that many ways: I'm an Orthodox Christian - I just have nothing to say or no right to say anything or discuss anything at present.

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.