Religion

 The highest is the One. This is basically the One of Plotinus but I am not really a student of Plotinus. All things exist in as much as they are a unity. Matter is the farthest thing from the One. Matter is not necessarily evil per se but it lacks the unity of higher things. Also, in as much as material things become fixations they are evil. The One doesn't really have a will, it is more a source of power for those who are able to tap into it.

Below the One is the Demiurge. The Demiurge is sort of evil. The Demiurge wants to usurp the power of the One because he believes that he is the creator of the universe. 

Then is the God of Games and the Adversary. Basically there are many paths to the One. Humanity is not really capable of comprehending the One in all its generality so it is necessary to take a path. The God of Games is allied with the One while the Adversary is allied with the Demiurge. The Adversary is the God of necessity particularly physical necessity. The Adversary has to do with the needs of survival and the work you have to do to survive. The Adversary is the God of drudgery. The God of Games is the God of joy and freedom.

The God of Games and the Adversary are locked in a struggle called The Great Game. This is a game that takes place across all of reality. They are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. They are merely very skilled at this Great Game.

The individual soul must seek some kind of unity. The soul is eternal. But in successive lifetimes it can come closer to matter or closer to the One. For those who are devotees of the God of Games the path obviously involves playing games and trying to become more skilled. But it is very difficult if not impossible to escape from the power of the Adversary. Most gamers have to make concessions to the Adversary to greater or lesser degrees. Even those who are professional gamers still have to make many concessions to the Adversary.

 

Some thoughts on solo roleplaying

 This is another post copied from that abandoned blog.

=====

 I will just start by saying I am not very experienced so far. I started out using D&D 5e with the "Solo Adventurer's Toolbox" books but switched to using GURPS and Mythic (first edition). Combined I have run about 20 sessions. But I have also spent time creating characters and researching settings.

The first thing that comes to mind is that solo roleplaying takes effort. It involves using your brain. Basically you are creating something and that takes effort. The roleplaying system of your choice and the oracle of your choice can help with that but you have to put effort into creating the story. I think this is why some people are more interested in using AI because it has some of the advantages of a computer game where you don't have to create the story yourself.

 I also think it is something that takes some getting used to and some practice to get right. For example, you have to find a balance between creating a narrative yourself and the dice. If you just let the dice do everything then the game can feel disjointed and random. But if you are putting in all the effort then you might as well just be writing a story. So the trick is to find some middle ground where it still has game aspects but it also has some kind of narrative coherence. I think this is a bit trickier than it seems at first. 

Some people are happy with a dungeon crawl where it is all combat and loot. This solves the problem of balancing narrative and the dice by landing firmly on the dice side of things. With the dungeon crawl you can just roll on random encounter tables and dungeon generation tables and then just roll the dice for combat. This definitely has some appeal because it is less effort and I do feel combat is fun. However, I kind of suspect that if I was doing combat all the time I would get bored and drop it.

Personally, I think there is something attractive about having a story. That is one of the reasons I switched to GURPS. Basically I was interested in being able to explore a variety of worlds. And so far I have done that. It has been fun to create some specific settings. Another attraction of GURPS is the wide variety of books. The Napoleonic Era book sparked some ideas about creating a setting in revolutionary Paris involving a famous chess cafe. I am also hoping to make use of the mass combat rules to get involved in a Napoleonic battle. I also started a Chinese martial arts novel type campaign where the hero was trained at the Shaolin Temple but is also good at the game of go. I am working on developing a character for the so called Golden Age of Islam around the 9th and 10th centuries in Baghdad. 

So I think part of it is just realizing that to some extent it does take some effort and some exploration and some practice to learn what you like and what you don't like. This may be a bit trickier than it seems at first.

Taoist Sage NPC

 This is a post that I wrote last year for another blog I started but never shared with anyone. I kind of feel like this is the sort of thing I would like to put in this blog also so I copied it here.

===========

 

 Today I worked on creating a Taoist sage. This is an NPC in my GURPS martial arts campaign. My wife gave me some tips on things a Taoist sage should be able to do. Her suggestions were 1) longevity, 2) paralyze with pressure points, 3) Invisibility, 4) create an illusion where the person gets lost in an area and can't get out, and 5) good at Tai Chi Chuan.

For 1), I went with "unaging". I guess this is more like immortality.  In my Eastern religions class in college the prof said that a lot of religious Taoists (as opposed to philosophical Taoists) sought immortality. By the way, a lot of them thought cinnabar was part of the elixir of eternal life but it is actually poisonous because it has mercury in it. But for that reason I chose a name that is supposed to mean cinnabar (Pan Dandan). My wife says there is no such name or term for cinnabar. If you want your Taoist sage to be long lived but not immortal you can go with "extended lifespan". I am pretty surprised that "unaging" only costs 15 points.

For 2) I used "pressure points" and "pressure secrets" which requires "trained by a master". But I also gave her "pressure point strike" which comes from "Martial Arts". I guess technically the "pressure points" skill by itself does what I want. As described in the basic text, "pressure secrets" is more about doing damage rather than paralyzing. The strike technique just does away with the -2 to hit for targeting pressure points.

 For 3) I just used "Invisibility art" which seems to be what I was going for. I guess the only thing is that as written it is less mystical. I suppose, since I used magery and spells I could have used the invisibility spell if I wanted it to be more of magical thing. But I kind of liked that it is based on "trained by a master".

 For 4) I decided I had to go with spells. Not exactly what I was thinking but basically the only way to create this illusion. So I debated three ways. One was actually creating teleport gates that the person would go through that would teleport them back to a place they had already been. The other was to use illusion spells. And the third was to use mind control spells. I ended up going with the third because the combination of "disorient", "avoid", and "lure" seemed to be the closest to what I was imagining. Basically my idea is that she would cast "avoid" on the way out and "lure" to draw the person toward the center. Combined with the disorient effect the person would keep going toward the center but they wouldn't realize that is what they were doing so that fits with the idea. Basically the teleport gates seemed like they would take too much energy to cast and maintain and would have a lot of prerequisite spells. They would also require illusion spells to disguise them. The illusion also didn't really do what I wanted because it is more static and the illusions seemed to not respond to touch. So I couldn't really see a good way to create the intended effect with illusions. The combination of mind control spells seems to come closest to the spirit of what I was trying to achieve. I guess the only problem with this is that maybe it would be difficult to cast "avoid" on all the ways out if the person is in forest or some more natural setting. I guess it isn't really necessary and the combination of "disorient" and "lure" should work but the "avoid" spell seems to make it better which is why I included it. Maybe the "avoid" could just be cast on certain strategic points to reinforce the going in circles.

For 5) I used "Martial Arts" to get suggestions for skills for Tai Chi Chuan. So, I guess that is one thing I don't like about how Gurps handles martial arts. Even though there is a whole book full of a bunch of different styles you still have to use "karate" and "judo". So even though my character doesn't really know either of those, I have to put those on the sheet, and even though my character is a Tai Chi Chuan master it doesn't actually say Tai Chi on the sheet anywhere. It's not really a big deal but I just find it annoying. Maybe they just thought it was too complicated to have all of these different styles as separate skills but I kind of thought that is what "Martial Arts" would be for. But other than that I like the skills "Martial Arts" suggests and I, of course, used the cinematic ones as well. So I added "perfect balance", "push" and some others. I feel the suggestions match up with what I learned about Tai Chi from the class I took in college.

I also gave her "esoteric medicine".

So, I guess the sage is kind of expensive. I didn't think it would come out to 450 points. On the other hand, I didn't give her any disadvantages. Some well chosen disadvantages could reduce the point cost. And she is supposed to be a mystical being. I guess I plan on using her more as a quest giver than as an opponent or an ally so I didn't really need to create a full character sheet but I had fun doing it.

 

 

 

 

Update

 Well, kind of been struggling. After Wes left I had a couple of good days of being active and getting some stuff done but since then I have slid back into old habits. I have been getting up later and later. Today was a typhoon day so no work. I went to bed after 6am this morning and got up a bit before 3pm. Also, despite my resolution I have slid back into journaling all the time that I am not working or doing chores. Really haven't been doing much in the way of gaming. I have had a few ideas for blog posts and have done a little bit of writing about those but didn't really come up with anything I felt satisfied with. But sometimes it is like that and I will come back to those ideas and finish something up. I have been doing a bit better on the spending issue. I have frozen my spending on games and gaming and have reduced my spending on eating out and getting coffee although I haven't eliminated those completely.

The only thing I have been doing other than that is just listening to music a bunch which is pretty unusual for me. I really don't spend that much time listening to music and usually when I do it is just when I am doing the dishes or maybe when I am on the MRT.

I think one thing that holds me back is just this kind of strong feeling that I need to have some kind of justification or plan for what I am doing. There have been some games that I have felt some desire to play but a feeling that what I am doing needs to be part of some deeper kind of activity holds me back. Part of me thinks that is kind of ridiculous and I should just jump into something and get going but this feeling of needing a justification or plan can be quite strong.

 I guess one issue that comes up frequently is scope. There is part of me that really wants to have my own niche or forte. Like some subject that I know really well and can comment on with some real experience and knowledge. But there is just part of me that kind of rebels against limitations somehow, even ones I have chosen for myself.

I guess for the most part I have been feeling more interested in video games lately. The two main ones on the top of the list right now are Shadowrun: Dragonfall and Suzerain. Shadowrun is a turn based roleplaying game. It is one of a series of three games made by this company that are very similar in terms of mechanics and design. I played the other two and enjoyed them quite a bit. This one though has kind of been very stop and go. I have started it several times and then dropped it. I think part of this is just the tone. I feel the tone is a bit more depressing or kind of in your face about some of the "grittier" aspects of life as a shadowrunner. Suzerain is a politics and government simulator. I played about 2 hours before wes came and liked a lot of things about the game but it kind of feels like it is a big commitment because there is a lot of stuff to keep track of and stay on top of. I guess there is also some reluctance to get into Realpolitik right now.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction is elusive.

So what is satisfaction? I think satisfaction if a feeling of a need being met. Basically, it is a feeling that a need is being met and that the effort or time involved were somehow proportional. When you think of it in terms of needs being met then satisfaction is obviously important. And we are all seeking it in various ways whether that is through work, or relationships, or hobbies or all of the above. Proportional means that the challenge of meeting the need is neither too easy nor too hard. It is just human nature that when a need is very easily met we often feel bored, dissatisfied, or take the solution for granted. But if somehow the price for meeting the need is too high then we feel it is not worth it and we feel frustrated.

So why is satisfaction elusive? I think it is elusive because we often don't have a clear idea of what our needs are. Also, some of our needs can be contradictory and often we stand in our own way. Furthermore, reality often isn't very compliant. This means that reality often presents us with choices where tradeoffs or concessions are necessary. And often satisfaction can be hidden behind something that initially seems unappealing and conversely, the thing that initially appears satisfying often proves to be an illusion. Lastly, there is a time element. Needs change from moment to moment. What is satisfying at one time may not be satisfying at another time.

From the above it may seem impossible to find satisfaction or that it is shocking that anybody finds more than a glimmer of it once in a great while. I think it is possible to find satisfaction though at least to some degree. But it requires effort.

I think it comes down to some simple things. First off, dissatisfaction often comes more from mental traps like taking things for granted or envy or unreasonable expectations of the degree or kind of satisfaction we deserve. Gratitude can be a great corrective for these.  Sometimes satisfaction is just a matter of stepping back and seeing that our needs are actually being met. But secondly, we have to be honest with ourselves. Sometimes the price or tradeoff is just too great. One need is being met at the cost of another that is more important or the price in time or effort is just too great. We need to have a clear idea of our priorities. But real effort is involved. Real satisfaction is a result of experimentation and reflection. Life won't always hand you a clear cut decision. The only way is to put the effort in to making a considered decision and then honestly evaluating the results. You have be open to new experiences but you also have to know what you like. And lastly we have to recognize that our needs can shift. Some people are blessed to be born with simple motivations or desires that are easily satisfied. But for most of us, our needs are somewhat mutable and what satisfies one day may not satisfy the next. I think the trick is avoid overgeneralizing. Resist the temptation to believe that any one solution is universal.

So what does this all have to do with gaming? I think gaming meets needs like the need for entertainment and recreation but also for challenge and a sense of progress.

So how do we have gratitude with games? First off, I think it is good to be grateful for the hobby in general. We live in a golden age of gaming and there are huge numbers of games of all different kinds being produced every day. I think it is just important to be grateful for that richness. It is easy to lapse into some kind of dissatisfaction because you feel like you are not finding the "perfect" game that ticks ALL the boxes or pushes ALL of the buttons. It is important to step back sometimes and just see how much of interest is being done with this hobby. Secondly, there is a lot of FOMO (fear of missing out) in the hobby. For some games this can be because there are limited print runs. Things like board games or chess books do get sold out and then become more difficult to obtain and often significantly more expensive as a result. But it is important to be grateful for the games and books we do have. There is a real tendency to feel that something loses its excitement after it becomes part of our collection. I think just being grateful and appreciating what we have can be a source of satisfaction. One trick I am trying right now is to freeze my spending for awhile. This is partly out of necessity but also because I want to try to focus on enjoying what I already have. Trying to find the depths in things I have only tried superficially. I have tried this before and I found my wants got less.

But we also have to be honest with ourselves. I think a lot of people present their own satisfaction with a game as if it is a general truth that everyone must find it satisfying. It can be easy to fall into believing that we should be gaming a certain way or that some games are inherently "better" than other games. Sometimes people have a self-image that is not exactly accurate. They believe they like some specific type of game or a style of playing a specific game because it fits with their self-image. Sometimes these self images are totally false. More likely they are simply limiting. When I first started getting back into video gaming I thought I really liked weighty strategy games with lots of complicated mechanics and things to adjust. I have come to realize that this is usually not really what I want in a video game.

I think you have to also be honest with yourself about when something is played out or when the price starts to seem too high. Sometimes we find a game we like and is a source of satisfaction but over time it starts to become stale and we lose our enthusiasm or we get frustrated or it costs a lot. I have three examples from my own gaming.

 The first is the Elder Scrolls Online. I have sunk over 800 hours into that game. At first it was fun and interesting and I enjoyed it a lot. But later it became something of a trap. It was easy. And so I often picked it up and played it even though (later on in that 800 hours) it wasn't that satisfying. I just picked it up because I knew how to play it and there was always new content to explore. But I think this prevented me from exploring other games. So I had to get honest that despite the fact that it had been fun or exciting at some times it had kind of lost its luster and I was mostly just playing out of habit. 

Second is Magic the Gathering. I find deck building satisfying. I really like to build a deck and then play it and see how it does. And I have certainly had some fun with this game. But it definitely comes at a price in the literal sense of that word. It is a collectible card game and you very much have to pay to play. Not to mention that there are two entirely separate online platforms as well as the real in-person "paper" way of playing. This presents a trade-off that can be tricky to navigate.

Third is chess. Basically this is one where the price in frustration started seeming too high. I started out with the high goal of making an over the board (in-person tournaments) rating of 2000. I put a lot of time, effort, and money into this goal but I didn't make appreciable progress (past a certain point). Of course there was some satisfaction from pursuing the hobby and I haven't given it up completely. But I had to get honest that I was dissatisfied with the level of frustration I was feeling and the downsides were starting to feel greater than the upside. So I started exploring other games.

But a result of that exploration has been that I find myself playing more games and a lot of those games are games that I "bounce off of". (Meaning I didn't enjoy.) This is where effort comes in. It takes effort to try new things. An example of this is online boardgaming at Board Game Arena or Yucata. These are two websites where you can play boardgames with other people over the web. Both of them have a lot of games available to play. (BGA much more than Yucata but Yucata's collection is nothing to sneeze at.) At first this seems magical and one can feel like a kid in a candy store. But after a little while you start to learn the downside. For every game you want to play, first off you have to learn the rules. Then secondly, you have to play the game for awhile before you really get a handle on the strategy and whether you like it. So each of those games requires a significant commitment to play. And if you don't like something it is always a question of whether it just really didn't suit you or if you didn't give it enough of a chance. But these considerations also hold true for video games and other kinds of games.

Lastly, the question of temporal change. This is the one I struggle with the most. Some people are lucky in that they find a game they like early in life and they stick with it and find it satisfying for a long time. I am almost the polar opposite of this. Things that seem satisfying one day are very often unappealing on another day. This has been a real source of struggle for me. Particularly because I do have an ambition to "git good". So I have spent a lot of time struggling to focus on one game (particularly chess but also sometimes others) in order to get strong. Part of me really wishes I could be dedicated to just one game and really love it and always want to play it. But it just doesn't really seem to be that way. So another solution I have come up with and tried to implement to some degree is to be more honest about what kind of mood I am in and to try to find a game that suits that mood. For example, if I am tired but don't want to go to bed it is useless to get frustrated with myself for not wanting to do something that requires a lot of effort. At times like those a game like the Elder Scrolls Online or Stardew Valley can be suitable. My goal is to create some kind of oracle where I can answer a few questions and be presented with some options that hopefully would be suitable and satisfying given my current mood. Or at the very least have a kind of mental list of games suitable for certain moods. This takes honesty and effort as outlined above to try new things and find what I like and what I don't and what suits a given mood and what doesn't.

 

Review of The Thaumaturge

 I bought this and played it to completion right around when it was released which is pretty unusual for me. I am usually more a patient gamer who waits for games to "mature" (ie get game breaking bugs patched.). Thankfully, my playthrough was mostly bug free. So overall I am happy I bought it and played it.

Setting: This is a really big part of the attraction for me. It is set in Warsaw in 1905. For me this made the game a lot more interesting and engaging than another generic fantasy setting would have been. The city is represented with what seemed to be authentic districts and sights (although of course the actual game map is greatly simplified). At that time this part of Poland was under Russian control so there are simmering tensions that add to the intrigue. There are some ways in which the setting is altered though. Firstly, magic is part of the setting. This takes the form of people (thaumaturges) who have the ability to control spirits known as "salutors". There is a strong psychological dimension to this because these spirits are tied to character flaws in the thaumaturge. Magic is somewhat rare in that there are very few thaumaturges. But these are sufficiently high profile that the general populace is aware of them. In fact another aspect of this is that there is anti-thaumaturge sentiment. This is one of the main plot points. I also liked this aspect of the setting and felt it was an interesting take on magic. Secondly, the Russian royal family is present in Warssaw at this time. I guess they are just visiting but it seems to be a semi-long-term presence. I don't think this is factual but I am unsure.

Characters: Another strong point of the game is the characters. Because our main character comes from a wealthy family but has a disreputable past he is able to move in various social settings. So he is able to interact with the Russian aristocracy but also with port workers, Jews, gangsters, and anarchists. This really fleshes out the setting and makes it more interesting. It brings out the tensions and reveals different dimensions of the city. One other thing that kind of stands out is the fact that Rasputin is present in the city and trying to get associated with the Russian royal family. This may seem silly to some but I enjoyed the character and the role he played in the story. Overall, I felt the writing of the characters was good and their predicaments were interesting.

Plot: I don't want to give spoilers so I will speak in generalities here. I felt the plot was ok but a bit less strong than the setting. It also felt slightly disjointed in that there are several different sections and the objective changes. There are some major decisions which seem to give different endings that I am interested in replaying the game for. Overall, I thought the plot was good enough to keep me interested but I feel like it wasn't the games strongest point. I liked a lot of the side/sub quests though.

Mechanics: The main one is a method of finding your way in the game. Basically, your character snaps his finger and some red glitter emanates from him. This red glitter will lead you to the next place you need to go. I feel mixed about this. I liked the visual aspect. I thought the red glitter looked cool. It also streamlines the exploration. As far as I know it is a novel way of handling this issue of letting the player know where to go. I partly felt though that it made finding your way a bit too easy. Part of the fun of rpg games is exploring the world and finding the stuff you need and other stuff along the way. Of course the red glitter didn't totally eliminate this but it did diminish it a bit. You have some choice in terms of what storyline or quest your following but within that it just tells you where to go. It's also static. This red glitter is separate and doesn't have any upgrades or development. It ends up feeling a bit like hand holding. Meaning the game is doing some of your work for you and making it easier.

There are also some mechanics with respect to your salutors and your character flaws. Basically dialogue choices will either feed your character flaw or diminish it. Feeding it can result in increased abilities and extra dialogue options. I didn't see exactly how much this impacts the game but further playthroughs may reveal that.

Lastly, the salutors you control can be used to manipulate other characters' psychology or responses. I liked this aspect but don't feel like I have a lot to say about it.

Combat: This is where your salutors get most of their work. I thought the combat system was interesting in that I have never played anything quite like it before. It is turn based, meaning one action happens at a time, either yours or an opponent's. But it's stylized in a way with cards you have to choose to take your actions. The salutors have a range of abilities that they can use as well as you having normal attacks. These salutor abilities can do various things such as interrupting or stunning an opponent or giving you health back. On the other hand, I feel like combat is my main complaint with the game. I played on normal difficulty and combat just felt way too easy. I only had to do a few fights over again and I never really had to engage with the upgrade systems. I am a pretty lazy gamer so it may have been part of why I finished the game. But I think I would have welcomed a bit more challenge here. Of course I can try playing on the top difficulty setting if I want to explore those combat systems a bit more.

Sidequests: Basically there are three levels of quests in the game. One is main story quests. Then there are side quests. Then there are city secrets quests. The first two are pretty self explanatory. The main story line quests relate to the progression in the game. There are cut scenes. (a cut scene is like a video as opposed to regular game play but it is not actual video, it is still animation.) Sidequests are interesting little stories that often require you to go several places and interact with stuff but they are generally kind of stripped down compared to main story quests. The city secrets quests are just little things. You get them from stuff you find around the city. So basically you just go to one place and don't have to interact at all. It just shows some text and a sketch. At first I found these a bit annoying just because there isn't much too them. But they do give xp to boost your stats. But they grew on me. In the end they give a bit more flavor to the city. I am kind of in the middle on optional content like this. Some people don't care about them at all and will just play the main story quest. Others are completionists who insist on collecting all the collectibles and doing every little thing there is to be done in the game. I am kind of in between. I have a bit of a collector bug but I am not a completionist. I like to do regular side quests and I do like to do the collecting stuff but I am mostly in it for the main story. One interesting thing is that a lot of the sidequests seem to have a timer but the only thing that really seemed to affect the timer was progress on the main story. That is, actually spending time in the game didn't seem to advance the timers. Also some sidequests would start with the timer already partly gone.

As I said, I am happy with the game. I recommend it to anyone who feels the setting is interesting. But if you are a power gamer you are probably going to want to turn up the difficulty.

Review of Daily Game vs LDroid

 Review of this game: https://www.chess.com/game/daily/691709569

-white move 6, I think that basically this is one of the problems with this variation.

Basically if the opponent has some idea that I play it and wants to stop it then they can.

So that feels a bit mixed.

Obviously you can't have your way all the time in chess.

And it is also kind of unclear how good these variation stoppers are.

But it just makes me think a bit.

But I didn't bother to look it up because it is not a book move I know and I think I played ok afterwards.

 

-white move 10, so basically I get half of what I wanted. I wanted to get rid of my bad bish and eliminate his good bish. So here he voluntarily gives up the light square bishop for my knight. Kind of seems bad but maybe I am kind of overvaluing the advantage I get.

 

-black move 14, I feel mixed. clearly white is showing aggressive intent on the K-side. so maybe making pawn moves and trades there is anti-positional. But on the other hand I always feel ambivalent about the f6 pawn break. I think I don't really know when it is good and when it is bad. That was one thing that frustrated me about Heisman. He just kind of refused to answer about that and it kind of felt like he was blaming me for asking.

 

-black move 15, developing the bishop. the downside is that the g5 square is not defended by a pawn which it would have been if I had played gxf6.

 

-black move 16, I clearly wasn't sensitive to the danger here. I just make a one move threat that does nothing and actually weakens my defenses because it makes me unable to play g6 in reply to Qh5. I probably should have considered BxN more. Not really sure why I didn't. I think it was a combination of things. I think I was worried about opening the h-file. I also think I was not wanting to give up the bishop pair so easily. Also, this is my good bishop. But honestly these may be ex post facto reasons when the real reason is I just didn't see the danger and thought the knight move was premature and I could just easily kick it.

 

-the opponent plays the attack well, winning two pawns. I trade queens because generally trading queens will dampen attacking chances. But on the other hand it is said that you shouldn't trade when you are down material.

 

-black move 22, I  think Rf8 is better. It gets my last piece developed and also defends the bishop so I don't have to split my pawns when he trades knight for bish.

 

-black move 24, I guess this is why I played 22. I get my knight to an outpost blockading his passed but isolated pawn.

 

-black move 26, I just blunder a third pawn. Just not playing carefully. I had probably given up mentally already but didn't want to resign yet. if I am going to continue I should play h5.

 

-my other weak pawn proves easy to pick off. I am down four pawns and he has his whole k-side as passed pawns.

 

I think several things stand out for me:

 

-first off, black move 14. I really feel like I need to work on learning how to handle this f6 break. I know it is good sometimes but I feel like really uncomfortable with playing it because I don't know how to handle it. So part of that is like deciding when it is good to play and when it is not. Second is just like the follow up like in this game. Is it always better to recapture with the g-pawn? or is capturing with a piece sometimes good? So in terms of actions on this I already tried the action of asking a stronger player. That didn't work out. So I think another action is to just do like here and play it and try to learn from experience and reviewing my games. I will try to keep an eye out for any commentary in materials I come across such as in opening books or whatnot. I guess my evaluation here just on my own is that it wasn't terrible. At least it wasn't game losing or anything. I even think Bxf6 may not be terrible. It was more the follow up and how I handled his aggression.

 

-secondly, black move 16. I am not sensitive to the danger and I make a dumb superficial move that only makes the situation worse. Like wetzell talked about this is an example of making a pawn move in reply to something without really accounting for its balance sheet. But overall I need to work on my sense of danger.

 

-thirdly, black move 22. I have a decent idea of getting my knight to the oupost but I significantly weaken my pawns by allowing them to be split. Rf8 would have developed a piece and prevented that.

 

-fourthly, black move 26. Both Heisman and Wetzell stress the importance of resigning if you have given up and if you haven't resigned to keep fighting like a lion. This is a weak move that is questionable even if it didn't blunder a pawn because I am trading when down in material. I think I had given up mentally and wasn't meeting the challenge of defending down two pawns.

 

============

 

chess.com review

 

-it likes his 10 Bxc6. it says it is the only move. Not sure why Be2 isn't good. It says Be2 loses a pawn to Nf5 Be3 (defending the more important d-pawn) and Qxb2. And Bd3 isn't good because after Nxd4 Nxd4 Qxd4, white has no check with the light squared bishop to win the queen so I have just won the d-pawn.

 

-instead of h6 it shows castles kingside. I kind of thought that would be castling into the attack (if I considered it). but I suppose if he plays Qh5 then I have Bxg5.

 

-also on move 25 it doesn't like f5, saying h5 is better which certainly would have freed my rook.