14/24 On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 16:43 Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <[email protected]> wrote:
> this is a chess game where i won against someone of much higher rating > than me: > > [Site "https://chess.org/play/cf645a4f-4446-4a83-b2fd-919727966f32";] > [Event "Chess"] > [Variant "Standard"] > [Round "1"] > [Date "2023.12.11"] > [TimeControl "2m +2s"] > [White "RaZacek"] > [Black "baffo32_lo"] > [WhiteElo "1686"] > [BlackElo "1370"] > [Result "0-1"] > > 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Nc3 Bf5 6. e4 Qe7 7. Bd3 > Nb4 8. O-O Bg4 9. Be2 Qe6 10. a3 O-O-O 11. Qe1 Nxc2 0-1 > > chess is now a scarred mental battlefield for me. i’ve spent time playing > chess puzzles and my otherness has spent time stimulating failures in me > despite this. a lot of time on both of these! my rating has dropped on > average in p2p and risen in the puzzles some i’d suspect. > > i totally smashed this game! partly luck, partly skill. i thought i might > consider reviewing it a little. > > 13/24 1413 > > # apk add gnuchess > > 1418 the apk add command ended up being a little more complicated, > involving ish crashing repeatedly, anyway > > 1444 > > how do i do fixed width font in gmail ipad app, or how else do i access > email? > > 1446 > > maybe i’ll go on website > > 1504 > > yayy fixed width > > back to responsive app? > > 1505 > > 1506 > > yayy fixed width in app. less responsive though. > > 1509 > > echo -e 'e4\nquit' | gnuchess -q --manual --graphic | tac | sed 's/ /. /g' > [note the board is mirrored from tac, a usual board would have the king > and queen swapped] > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♙ . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ ♝ ♞ ♜ > > i was black. white opened with their queen’s pawn. i usually use a > well-known midgrade opening i forget the name of that i learned at a summer > camp. > noting: since they opened with their queen’s pawn, i get to free my bishop > and queen, as well as optionally pin a piece on their king > > > pawn forward 2 > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♙ . . . . > . . . . ♟ . . . > . . . . . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ ♝ ♞ ♜ > > > pawn takes pawn > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ ♝ ♞ ♜ > > > pawn forward 1 > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . ♙ . . . > . . . ♟ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ ♝ ♞ ♜ > > > pawn takes pawn > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♙ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ ♝ ♞ ♜ > > > bishop takes pawn > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ ♘ ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > this theoretically exchanges position in my benefit for pieces in theirs; > i spend my years trying to figure out how the heck to take advantage of it. > one of the last exchanges i had regarding this at that summer camp was > something like “why does this opening never work against you (the person > who taught it to me)” “because you never make use of it, karl” > > > white next brought their king’s knight out. (i wonder what they were > planning or thinking. it could have been a habit to threaten or guard a > missing pawn in the middle.) > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . ♘ . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ ♞ ♝ ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > maybe they were erring in the side of threatening spaces my advanced bishop could otherwise make use of. > i brought out the opposing knight on my queen’s side. this threatens the > same central spaces their knight does, and also moves toward the more > difficult queen’s-side castle. i’m not sure what specifically my reasoning > was, but i’ve been exploring different things. > > ♖ ♘ ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . . . . ♘ . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . ♝ ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > something i’ve been thinking of here is - well > > > they brought out their opposite knight, so maybe this is just how they > like to open, or maybe it is some standard approach > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . . . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . ♝ ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > > i then brought out my bishop. likely i was thinking of controlling the > board safely and moving toward opening that queen’s side castle > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . . . . . . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > i think i move the second bishop out farther to maybe try to be more > aggressive, remember that e-change at summer camp. > *exchange > when it’s on the other queen’s/king’s side it threatens a pawn that can be > used for a checkmate, building what i’ve been calling initiative, giving > the opponent fewer options and yourself more > > > they moved their pawn forward 2 to threaten my overadvanced bishop > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . . . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . ♛ ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > > and here’s where it started getting fancy, i moved my queen in front of my > king (very dangerous!) to pin their pawn onto their king, so they couldn’t > take the bishop, in an attempt to keep my positional and move investments. > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ ♗ . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . . . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > i think once there are pins and things going on like this it starts taxing > the players’ memories in competition, to remember all the concerns and > dependencies. > - they can’t use their pawn how they usually expect, so they have to put > more cognition into things that involve it (it also pressure them to > prioritize moving their king or engaging my queen to threaten my bishop > again) > - i lose my bishop if i move my queen; all the places it threatens aren’t > actually threatened unless the value of moving there is more than a bishop, > which i’m likely to not think of > (i guess, maybe) > > i likely tried this from the puzzles experience. i’m pretty vulnerable > here in my opinion, but i think the unexpectedness and memory loading can > also help me win sometimes. > > the behavior is sadly a habit i have, where i try running a bigger risk to > see if it pans out later, kind of a little. intended only for play, not > serious situations. > > > they moved out their other bishop to defend the pawn. i forgot i could > take it. that’s likely why i risked the queen, cause it let me threaten > putting them in check, maybe > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ . . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ ♗ . ♘ . . > . . . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . ♞ ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > oh no … they were already threatening the pawn with their knight. maybe > they were disincentivizing me from pinning their knight on their king with > my bishop? > no, if i took the pawn with the bishop, and they took it with the knight, i think the queen could then take the knight, check, leaving me a pawn up with initiative. the bishop response deters this. > i advanced my knight likely to threaten their bishop and the pawn by their > queen, dunno, but both of which were also in line with my scared bishop, > tensely relying on their king not moving which would unpin the pawn that > could take it > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ ♔ . . ♖ > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ ♗ . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > noting my king is nicely freed by now to castle on the queen’s side too, > and there aren’t any pawns between where my rook would land and their queen > still is. maybe got more lucky in this game than skillful, unsure. > > [mistake][separately my memories of this game are worsened further from > the mirroring] > > > they castled on their king’s side, away from my advanced knight, > threatening my bishop > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ ♗ . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . . . > . . . . . ♝ . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > > i moved my bishop to a temporarily safer advancement, pinning their knight > on their queen. > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > ♙ ♙ ♙ . . ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ ♗ . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > i might be thinking here that i need to collect pressure near their king > to eventually checkmate them as well as build initiative, not sure. anyway > it pins their knight which reduces their board control for one move at > least i guess. often i have a habit of aggression in the hopes they get > confused like me, maybe. people repeat what works. > > i recall i was pressuring their king. > > > they retreated their bishop to unpin their knight > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ . . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . ♛ ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > i’m guessing this meant i still had the initiative i was seeking because > they responded to my move without gaining much position. > > > here i think my finger actually slipped, possibly dissociatively, and i > moved the queen forward one when i wasn’t planning to. > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > ♙ ♙ ♙ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > . . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ ♛ . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > this guards the bishop. i think i would usually have moved it forward two > to threaten (and advertise this to the opponent) the checkmate pawn > diagonal from the king. > > this surprise left me unbalanced and i was looking for how to regain more > advantage. > > it’s so nice to review something with a dissociated confusion (i.e. > amnesia, [maybe it’s hard to store memories when you’re regaining footing]) > in it! and we won! together! o_o :) > > > they advanced their pawn 1 to threaten and push my knight to move. > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > . ♙ ♙ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > ♙ . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ ♛ . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > ♜ . . . ♚ . ♞ ♜ > > i might have felt a little excited here, as if it wasn’t enough of an > initiative press back for me to lose mine. i had three diagonal pieces > threatening near their king (if i get my queen defended on one of those > pawns it’s checkmate, it could do that in 2 moves despite my slip) and the > knight they were threatening was distant from them. > > > i used my queen’s side castle to threaten revealing with my bishop, my > rook against their queen. this meant my bishop could effectively make two > moves in a row if they couldn’t regain initiative rescuing their queen. > [possible mistake] > > ♖ . ♗ ♕ . ♖ ♔ . > . ♙ ♙ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > ♙ . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ ♛ . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > . . ♚ ♜ . . ♞ ♜ > > notably i am now threatening taking their queen by moving the bishop to > put them in check. this is another trick i learned from the puzzles. > > i am now very strongly in the advantage, but it involved layering > approaches behind strong risks that can easily go poorly if one’s memory > falters (which mine —- ); because i am threatening both their queen and > their king and they are only threatening more minor pieces. > > maybe i’d like to play through this game more. i don’t usually pull this > off and i think it’s because i run poor risks or lose track of them. maybe > i could compare it to a losing game and see what’s different or something … > [unsure :s some write mistake—-] > > > i wonder if my finger slip put them in unwarranted ease or something > > > so what happened is they moved their queen toward their king to protect it > from my check-reveal. this let me fork it with their rook with my risked > knight, and they then resigned the game in defeat, which let me realize how > much advantage i had before i lost it in further mistakes maybe ;S > > ♖ . ♗ . ♕ ♖ ♔ . > . ♙ ♙ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > ♙ . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . ♞ . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ ♛ . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > . . ♚ ♜ . . ♞ ♜ > > ♖ . ♗ . ♕ ♖ ♔ . > . ♙ ♞ . ♗ ♙ ♙ ♙ > ♙ . ♘ . . ♘ . . > . . . . ♙ . ♝ . > . . . . . . . . > . . . ♝ ♛ . . . > ♟ ♟ ♟ . . ♟ ♟ ♟ > . . ♚ ♜ . . ♞ ♜ > > victory. my ranking was 1370 and theirs was 1686. > > i’m thinking one thing maybe i did here was open multiple aggressive > avenues at once (not all of which i was aware of) and then stay flexible > about which i pursued as they responded. having them open meant that i had > multiple options for pressuring them, since i don’t know what they will do. > > i guess when my finger slipped with my queen it left them unsure of what > avenues i was pursuing. if i had moved my queen all the way as i meant, > what usually happens is they immediately fortify their king to prevent > checkmate which would have made the reveal that trapped their queen via > their king no longer work that way. instead they worked to address the > other side of the board. > > they may have seen something my slip could do that i didn’t, that they > were acting on. > > it’s noticeable that my rook and knight were working together to limit > their queen. i don’t think imwas consciously aware of this at the time. > > doing puzzles with the dissociativ— > > anyway :) > > i’m inhibited against reviewing my own behavior so this was awesome to > post :D it’s been many years since i’ve had a positive way to feed back > around things and improve them. > >
