I tend not to keep copies of things, and only a handful are lodged in accessible parts of the internet. More may be hidden behind the Murdoch paywall.

OK, his natives may have been a *little* too human-like, but I tend to side with the idea that most any civilization of individual beings (as opposed to gestalt/hive minds) would likely follow broadly similar social patterns. May be sortof parochial, but it just makes sense. Those so-teddibly-socially-non-human aliens some writers like to create often strike me as completely nonsensical from the POV of why and how any species would develop in such ways... other than for the writer to try and come off as oh-so-original. :p

<If we could, somebody would.>

I know, I know. This may be why I'm not really any good at anything. No discipline, no rigour, no appetite for punishment. Insufficient masochism.

The books that *did* impress me -- Dick, Ballard, some Delany, Aldiss's 'Barefoot in the Head' -- strike you as decadent, druggy, over-elaborate, inconsistent, wilfully obscure and singularly unenlightening.

Bit like me, rilly.

As for Pynchon, Burroughs, Dick, and their recurring fascination with paranoia -- Bill Hartston (begetter of the term 'frogspawn') wrote somewhere that chess may be the only human activity where paranoia confers a distinct advantage.

Of course, my/your view of chess openings chimes perfectly with our respective notions of science fiction.

Otherwise, you're right.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "Feb 10, 2012"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M"]
[Black "Stockfish dumbed down"]
[Result "1-0"]

Here's another <how to lose horribly in the French> - especially for you! ;)

[Event "FICS rated blitz game"]
[Date "2012.02.11"]
[White "AnnieK"]
[Black "NN"]
[WhiteElo "1505"]
[BlackElo "1627"]
[TimeControl "600+0"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[Result "1-0"]

Meanwhile, the narrative continues ... I played two more FIDE-rated chess games yesterday, in the league team tournament thing. First up was a 1480-ish guy who'd actually beaten me a couple of months ago, by playing the Exchange variation of the French and tripping me up when I over-reached trying to win a drawn ending. No such problems this time: another French, 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.Nf3 Ne7 6.a3 Ba5, transposing into the Swarm. A few moves later he played b4, I played ...Nc6xb4, and that shoulda been that ... though he tried sacking a couple of pieces for a not-quite mating attack. I ran my King from h7 to a7, and then mated him first.

Revenge is ... time-consuming.

Game two, White (I'd almost forgotten what to do) against one of those dangerous 2000-rated under-14-year olds. So I play a reverse Benoni, 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 c5 4.c4!? (I've tended to play 4.d4 here recently, but I'm bored with it: a Reverse Gruenfeld which usually transposes to a Catalan or Tarrasch).

Around move 22 he thought he was 'winning' a queenside pawn. I thought I was playing a temporary positional pawn sac which would allow my bishops to dominate his knights. I was right.

Dominance duly achieved, I had excellent winning chances. Then he played 32...Rf8, reaching this position ...

click for larger view

... and offered me a draw. Which, for some reason, I accepted. Can't for the life of me see why: White is in charge after 33.Nh4.

I'm vulnerable to strategic draw offers. I could feel my energy draining away, and I was pretty sure that his wasn't, though he had much more to worry about. I may not be a worrier in RL, but I worry at the chessboard. And if a draw offer comes out of the blue just when I've found a phantasm to worry about ... I sometimes grab it first and rue it later.

A draw isn't a bad result, I suppose. Especially as I was White, with all the baggage that entails. But I enjoyed the opening ... I may go back to the 'real' Benoni, one of these days. After all, it's 33 years since a trouncing by Ray Keene made me switch to 'safer' d4 defences, like, um, the Dutch.

I used to have a cheapo 'Kasparov' brand chess engine, which used Ruffian. It made mistakes, sometimes even at max strength, but it had a whole range of settings keyed to Elo ratings. You picked an opponent anywhere from 1000 to 2400 rating, and off you went.

I used it a lot before my 2006 'comeback' to tournament chess after a 16-year gap. Setting it around 2000, I systematically tried different openings. I was quite willing, at that point, to consider a whole new repertoire - so I tried 1.e4 and various gambits in the Sicilian, Scotch and Four Knights, and took a good look at the Dragon. It was worthwhile, even though I eventually reverted to something very like my old English/French/Dutch repertoire.

What I found interesting about the gambits was that I could win easily at settings up to about 1800. But if the computer was any stronger, I struggled. While my Reti/French stuff was slower, it could cope with engine settings up to 2200.

But I also forgot, in the process, a few things about the way humans play chess. Such as one-move cheapo traps, like the one I fell into in my very first tournament game. I thought my opponent was giving away a pawn because he was lost, which he was. But the pawn was poisoned, and cost me a piece - and eventually, half a point, as I could only draw.

I don't use that program anymore - I gave away the disc - but Fritz can be dumbed down in several ways. Sometimes I set it up to play really horribly, just because I feel like kicking something.

Various writers suggest using engines for endgame practice. I watched a game yesterday which came down to king, bishop and knight vs bare king. The young guy with the pieces was systematically chasing the king into the wrong corner. Being from the post-literate post-book generation, he didn't know that the corner has to be the same colour as the bish. Painful to watch, and eventually drawn.

I gave up playing chess ten years before he was born. I guess we both started again around the same time. He's improved a lot more than I have. But it's an odd feeling, drawing with somebody forty (!) years younger than oneself.

Maybe I was the one who dodged a bullet. I may have had the better position, but could I trust myself not to ruin it?

Such are the thoughts that drip slowly through the brain of the more venerable chessplayer, urging them to take a draw while it's going.

Was that the stuff in the umbrage stand by the door?

Well, we *have* been amusing ourselves by taking potshots at each other's favorite writers lately... :p

So, um, what were you considering taking umbrage about, anyhoo?? =)

That colour features in at least two of Brian Aldiss's sf books ... the trippier ones from the 60s, natch, like 'Barefoot in the Head'.

Potshots? Moi? Pot and shots and different times, maybe, but *potshots*? Never.

"We were looking right into Brainwashing House. You could see them all in there, injecting marijuana, catching diseases, and giggling."

Sometimes you find yourself with a pair of demi-buns (or baps) and only some finely-ground holy of holies will fit between them.