[spam][crazy][fiction][random] Non-Canon MCBoss Spinoffs

[Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many]

14/24

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 16:43 Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim &
Survivor of Many <gmkarl at gmail.com> 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.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 40116 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20231211/dbcae609/attachment.txt>