Playing chess has become a defense mechanism for me. I finally understand this. Increasingly, I will read something about the Trump administration and instead of writing about it I will just start playing some anonymous and similarly rated person in chess. Most often, this person will be from India or Brazil or Norway or the Maldives. It doesn’t really matter because we rarely use the chat feature anyway. But they’re not from here and they’re probably thinking about something completely different than what Rudy Giuliani just said on cable television. For ten to twenty minutes, we’ll be thinking of little else but pawn pushes and discoveries and how to avoid an endgame when we’re behind on time.
It’s an escape from this madness. But it’s also a purification of my mind. My brain wants to do computations. It wants to analyze. It likes the exercise. It’s why I write about the complexities of politics. But, when I’m subjected to a constant drumbeat of spin and illogic, it begins to actually clutter my mind and diminish my ability to think clearly. I used to solve this problem by drinking a lot of alcohol late at night to shut down my thought process and help me sleep. Instead of waking up hungover, I’d generally wake up clutter-free and ready to tackle another long day of blogging. But I gave up drinking five years ago because it eventually took its predictable toll on my health. The result has been about 99% positive, but the one percent that has been negative has been the inability to properly purge myself of garbage thinking.
I find myself spending too much time sucked into conventional surface-level thinking where I’m just reacting to things rather than seeing through them. The Trump Era has been particularly tough in this respect, because the man is just constantly asking for a response. And it grinds me down.
Vacations help, but I don’t have much paid vacation and I actually like writing so I don’t enjoy taking a break from it as much you might think. Chess has become a vacation I can take for twenty minutes, but those twenty minutes have started adding up to a loss of productivity. I need this man removed from office so I can get back to doing what I do, and doing it well.
One positive is that my chess rating has gone up about 200 points in the last two months. Here’s a game I played today as black when I should have been writing about a dozen different breaking stories. My opponent was from India. The computer really liked it, telling me I made zero blunders, zero mistakes, and only one inaccuracy. I think it shows an uncluttered mind. If only I could make it last longer than twenty minutes it might be a real solution.
1. e4 e5
2. Bc4 Nf6
3. Nf3 Nxe4
4. Nxe5 d5
5. Qe2 Bc5
6. d3 Bxf2+
7. Kd1 O-O
8. dxe4 dxc4+
9. Bd2 Bd4
10. Nxc4 b5
11. c3 Bf6
12. Ne3 Nd7
13. Na3 Re8
14. Ng4 b4
15. Nxf6+ Nxf6
16. Nc2 Bg4
17. cxb4 Bxe2+
18. Kxe2 Nxe4 (computer wanted Rxe4 but I was trying to create possible discovery opportunities with the knight/rook tandem).
19. Be3 Qf6
20. Rhf1 Qxb2
21. Rfc1 Nc3+
22. Kf2 Ne4+ (computer says Ne4+ is excellent, but when I followed with 23. Nd6, it forced me to give up my queen).
23. Kg1 Nd6 (I did not see the queen trap coming, but was able to get enough compensation it didn’t matter and the computer didn’t care).
24. Bd4 Re1+
25. Kf2 Rxc1
26. Bxb2 Rxc2+
27. Kg3 Rxb2
28. h3 Rxb4
29. a3 Rb3+
30. Kh2 Re8
31. a4 a5
32. Kg1 c5
33. Kh2 c4
34. Kg1 g6
35. Kh2 Re2 (white resigned)
5
5
5
Interview with Hou Yifan, the world’s best female chess player.
Interesting the picture you used. That looks like the World Championship between Caruana and Carlsen.
I would sure like to ask Carlsen some questions about that match.
.
nothing but draws.
But when did it become the strategy, instead of a tactic? He had an advantage in Rapid face to face. Yet that advantage seems to now be gone, showing how risky that strategy would be, if it existed.
I believe we will see a rematch.
.
Draws as a strategy is something that made Bobby Fischer nuts and caused him to cause no end of controversy about how to conduct a championship. Playing for a draw against a stronger opponent is a good idea in a cumulative point tournament, and the same is basically true for black if evenly matched. Draws as white against equal competition represents a lost opportunity, but is certainly preferable to taking risks you don’t understand and losing.
Carlson felt he would win a rapid showdown and he did. It’s hard to argue with him. He’s still the champ.
Very good read here. Your comments would be welcome. Any way we will see this happen?
https://abovethelaw.com/2019/09/democrats-judiciary-cory-lewandowski-bad/?rf=1
Probably not. But having majority counsel do extended questioning of witnesses is almost as good.
Impeachment, like any lengthy legal trial, is a marathon, not a sprint. Lewandowski’s lies can come back to hurt him, or to hurt his superiors. The committee (or another committee, or a US attorney or a DA somewhere) can summon him back for further questioning, or subpoena additional records.
Televised Watergate hearings by the House and Senate in 1973-74 consumed hundreds of hours and dozens of days, driving the “news cycle” repeatedly, no matter what Nixon did to try to distract the nation. Lots of those hours were consumed by Republicans trying to defend the president, or by Democrats asking nonsensical questions, or pursuing unimportant lines of inquiry, or giving self-indulgent speeches.
But all it takes is a few minutes (sometimes, just a sentence) of powerful questioning/testimony/speechifying to move the story (and the impeachment inquiry) forward. That happened with Lewandowski, too.
Finally, there’s a decent argument to be made that since the members of Congress are the people’s representatives, then they should be doing most of the questioning/talking. In a democratic society, politics is inevitably messy and inefficient.
Or, another way to think about it: chess is a way to shut down your thought processes, clear your mind, and let you sleep without all the predictable (and cumulative) effects of drinking on your health, and it’s a purification of your mind that strengthens your ability to analyze, do computations, and think logically. It’s not a loss of productivity. It’s exercise that sustains your productivity.
yes, that’s how I rationalized it, too, until it became a matter of time.
Ah, well.
It’s one of the challenges of advancing age: decreased ability to focus for long periods of time, and decreased productivity.
There’s a reason people in their 50s don’t stand around at parties comparing all-nighters they pulled to finish a paper or project in time.
Flip side: increased wisdom, perspective, sometimes increased impact and quality in what you do produce. Also: new (or renewed) interests/challenges/abilities, like chess seems to be for you. At the very least, late night chess games with opponents from around the world are a net positive over late night drinking sessions alone.
Most definitely.
Rumination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumination_(psychology)
I’ve struggled with it my whole life. The path NOT taken. Some employment can help, but those jobs usually require focus, and that leads to its own rumination. I discovered slow pitch softball in my younger days, and that eased my anxiety, but then my night vision went. Then autocross/SCCA. I became pretty obsessed with both in their time.
Now, at this age, I am trying to be a better man than I was yesterday, last week, or last year. Rumination is the enemy of that. I have found a new sport that will push me mentally, but will also take me to my physical limits.
I also started to practice, in a very amateurish way, Mindfulness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness It really helps. It turned out that I had been do a variation of Mindfulness in all my sports/hobbies. In the dug out before games I would center myself, and at autocrosses I would ‘get my mind right’ while sitting in my car. Almost a litany of ‘This Place, This Time, This is Real’.
This NOW, this moment, is all there really is. Live THAT moment first.
.
4.5
Here is fairly a painless win as white. Opponent is Brazilian. I use a Queen’s gambit opening which is declined.
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 c5
4. Nc3 cxd4
5. Nxd4 Bb4
6. Bd2 Bxc3 (missed win by me. Qa4+ would have allowed me to snatch his bishop)
7. Bxc3 dxc4
8. e3 Nf6 (computer thinks I should have castled on move 8 instead of move 12)
9. Bxc4 O-O
10. Bd3 Nc6
11. Nxc6 bxc6
12. O-O e5
13. h3 e4 (I was too concerned about Black Ng4 and passed on unprotected pawn on e5. Computer is mad)
14. Be2 Qxd1
15. Raxd1 Nd5
16. Bc4 Be6
17. Bxd5 cxd5
18. f3 exf3
19. Rxf3 Bd7
20. Rg3 g6
21. Rxd5 Bc6
22. Rd6 Bb7
23. Bb4 Rfd8
24. Rg4 Rxd6
25. Bxd6 Rd8
26. Rd4 Rc8
27. Rd2 a5
28. a3 Rc1+
29. Kf2 Rc4
30. Be5 Re4
31. Rd8#
I made 4 inaccuracies and two mistakes, but no blunders. My less than perfect moves really only prolonged the match but they didn’t create any serious vulnerabilities. Opponent fell for an obvious trap when I placed my bishop on move 30. He had to return his rook to the back row but instead threatened the bishop. Checkmate resulted and I avoided having to fight a winning pawn game.