Chess

Played three games of chess last night with Neil, and got my ass handed to me all three times. At my best, I was keeping up; at my worst, I'd make some incredibly boneheaded move and put myself in a position where there was no way I could win. I admittedly conceded all three games, but my logic all three times went something like this:
1) With a level playing field, I can maybe keep up. Let's be generous and give me 50-50 odds.
2) Neil just made an awesome move that made me waste about four moves and ended up with me losing a valuable piece. Therefore, I'm about four moves behind and down in points.
3) Conclusion: with a level playing field, I'm about 50-50. With the chips in Neil's favor, I'm probably more of a 95-5. Therefore, let's just concede rather than playing for another 30 minutes just to arrive at the obvious conclusion.

I remember when I backpacked with Runar, we played a ton of chess, and he beat me almost every time (meaning like 98%). We were discussing rankings, scores, etc, and Runar pointed out something interesting - chess rankings (or scores, or ratings, or whatever the hell it's called) are very specific, and you need to play with someone with practically an identical score to you. I think the points go somewhere from 0 to 2000 or something, and a difference of 100 points means that the player with the better score will almost always win, which isn't really any fun for either player. The Internet has been a a great tool for chess players, not because of social aspects or by eliminating the need to have a chess board, but because you can find someone whose score is close enough to yours to ensure a good, fair game. And (at least according to Runar), the best way to improve is to play someone at more or less your skill level - it's not like basketball or other sports where you want to play with people who are better than you (actually, it kind of is, but a difference of 100 points is the equivalent of migrating from your pickup game to playing with college starters - i.e. it's so far out of your league that you just get shut down and don't really improve).
I'm very impressed - I'm tempted to teach him how to play poker, because I think he could be far better at it than I am. Poker takes analytical skill, which he obviously has, and it also takes an intuitive ability to read people, which I think he also has. Of course, I don't want to be responsible for him getting in trouble or turning to gambling, so maybe I'll hold off on that.

Speaking of poker, Clau and I have decided to go to Massachusetts for the holiday weekend coming up. We're making the balls-out drive to Salem on Friday night, crashing, exploring Salem and migrating to Boston on Saturday, partying in Boston on Saturday, then exploring some more before heading to Foxwoods on Sunday. I'll play poker at Foxwoods (probably until the wee smalls), then on Monday we'll explore Mystic Seaport and head back home. Should be a lot of fun. I've never played in a casino before and I hope I don't get my ass handed to me like last night. But, the way I see it, even if I lose $500 on Sunday night, the proceeds from our apartment the following Wednesday ought to take the sting out of it.

OK, lots to do for work, and if I get a chance I'm going to review some chess materials: if I can at least not do anything really stupid, maybe I'll have a chance.
Choice quote from Neil last night: "Hey, you've been making some pretty good moves; not the one you just made, obviously, but overall pretty decent." My cup runneth over.