I’ve taken up learning chess in my copious free time. As I’ve told you, in March I read a book where the main characters were chess players. This past weekend, I watched The Queen’s Gambit for the first time. (Michelle, if you read this, remind me that we forgot to talk about it The Queen’s Gambit when I was at the ring today!) I was inspired to revisit the game. There’s something to be said about loving or respecting or appreciating something enough to create something that successfully draws people to it. Like all things considered, I’m perhaps still confused about the message of The Queen’s Gambit. (I definitely binge watched it too quickly and thus only comprehended probably like 28% of it.) Like the power of friendship and benzodiazepines can help you persevere against the commies, who aren’t all that bad because they are after all quite good at chess? But somehow, despite the fact that she seems kind of miserable constantly, they still managed to make me understand the obsessive, seductive allure of chess.
I tried to learn to play chess a few years ago, but the factors pushing me towards it were external (a stupid crush), and that never sticks. But this time around, I’ve got the time, and a brain even more attuned to hyper fixating.
This time around, it’s been sticking. I think I’ve played at least three hours a day for the past five? days or so. I’ve been taking the lessons, playing the bots, doing the puzzles. I understand how to play the game, and sometimes I even play well. It’s fun to practice, work, improve. As I write this, it makes me think of horseback riding, how for a long time now, I’ve derived the majority of my joy from the work of it. (I’d argue that’s when I started feeling like I actually had potential, when I derived fulfillment from doing the work itself, not just winning or succeeding.) In my #unemployed era, having something that I can really lock in on like that is helpful. (I think in my next life time, I’d do well as one of the worker bees in the hive. Or maybe a termite. An ant?)
One tactic of chess I’ve been learning and practicing is the idea of trading pieces. I’m not that good, so I inevitably have to lose pieces as I play, but the point is take as much you give. Pawn for pawn, knight for knight, bishop for bishop, rook for rook. Those are equal or fair trades. But if you’re successful, if you play your cards right (I’m adding unnecessary metaphors), you can trade a lower ranked piece for a higher ranked piece. That’s kind of the goal, lose a pawn to take a bishop. Trade a knight for a rook. Swap a pawn and a rook for a queen. The better I get at this tactic, the more success I find.
But this is uniquely difficult for me! I hate losing pieces. It’s just not me. I’m the same way when I play buraco. I like collecting cards, taking and taking from the trash pile. I like creating perfect sets, I like having an excess of cards so I never have to toss one of the cards I actually want. Except this is tough because one aspect of that game requires getting rid of all the cards in your hands so you can take from the morto, the two second sets of cards. My mom Adriana is really focuses on getting rid of her cards. She doesn’t mind frankensteining her sets, really mucking everything up. She tries to end the round as quick as she can. I hate doing that, it’s so much less satisfying. But sometimes, when the cards aren’t coming my way, I’ve got to cut and run. Beat her to the punch, end the round on my terms, even if I hate my terms from a stylistic standpoint. That requires being willing to ditch cards as needed.
It’s the same battle in two different games. That’s my risk aversion. I’m afraid that I’ll need that card later, I hate giving it up, even when I can see my mom’s card dwindling, even if it’s a fair trade where the other player will lose their queen, too. You end up having to bet on yourself in order to cut your opponent down. Feels risky.
I guess that might be why I like connect four so much… you never lose anything, you only ever build and build and build…
