Play the game.

I've been fighting a chess bot named "Li," who is ostensibly from Taiwan. Rated at 2000, I would say that it's an accurate statement that this level of play is quite challenging for me. I have now beaten Li once out of 17 games. One of those 17 games was a draw, so I guess I have a record of not losing 11.76% of the time. Those aren't great odds. Below is the winning game against Li. Real chess players will see this is an UGLY win, not elegant at all. But a win's a win, right? 

 At this point in the experience, the only way that I can beat a bot is to make as few mistakes as possible and be ready when it does. Clearly these are programmed into the algorithm so that they make for a more human-like competitor. 

On Chess.com, these are considered Advanced competitors. 

I have "Charles," "Fatima," "Manuel," and "Oscar" before I reach into the master bot territory. My strategy, though I don't know smart it is, is to move onto a new competitor after I've beaten a bot once. My suspicion is that it's probably better that I be able to consistently beat a bot before I move on; that way I'd REALLY be at these bots' level, rather than just being lucky or observant. 

I mean, I guess. 

Many of us have heard the phrase "Life is not a game." The only difference between games and life is personal repercussions. Both life and games are composed of rules and roles. What are the rules that we have to abide by? For example in life there are laws, societal norms, self imposed rules of behavior, while is games, there are commonly accepted rules of the game. There are also repercussions in games for not following the rules, you may lose the game, or get a penalty. 

Roles exist in life. Are you a mother or father? What are the rules and expectations for those roles? In a game, you may have fewer roles to choose from, maybe only a piece color in a what may seem a fair and meritocratic game, but chance rules. Or maybe you start with a handicap, and there are different rules for different players. (Or what I call "The Game of ACTUAL LIFE.") Life kind of is a game. If we approach it as something that we participate in and understand isn't fair, has rules that constantly change and favor people who either ignore the rules or have advantages like starting the game with a material advantage over other people, it starts to make a whole lot more sense. 

After my previous post it may have seemed like I was despairing. What was ostensibly good news about my liver cancer just put it into sharp relief that winning in life is only temporary. There's no such thing as a permanent win. Which is kind of the point of being alive, humanity, life, the universe and everything. Religious people see an afterlife of some sort as a counterpoint to problem of there not being a solution to the loss that is death. When you play a non life-based game, you win or you lose, it's temporary. You can start over again. 

Maybe another phrase that we've all heard is more apt. "In life there are no do-overs." This is meant to be a reminder of the finality of decisions we make, roads that we have trod and cannot go back down, etc. But I'm not entirely sure that's a way to live ones' life, is it? We all reinvent ourselves in some way or another, either large or small. People used to "move west" in order to reinvent themselves in 19th century America. I have reinvented myself, also. And I've learned the new rules of the game. Or rather I've adjusted to the penalty card which has been tossed on my pile. 

Sometimes when I play chess, I am convinced that I'm going to lose, that I'm in a thoroughly unwinnable situation. Yet I play on. And then the most amazing thing happens. The opponent makes a screwup that I'm able to exploit. My tumor has made some mistake that my doctors have been able to exploit, and when they saw them, they used cancer's unknowing and epic fuckups to march through the line and "get 'em." Doctors have basically told me that they know how to prolong the game, but they still don't know how to win. Every cancer or "bot" that they fight against, they learn more and better ways of fighting against their strategy. When I play chess, I play the game to the end unless I see no alternative. Amateurs lay down his or her king, while professional players stop the clock and shake the hand of their opponent. I don't think I'm the kind of person who will lay down his king prematurely, but I will know when it's really time. 

In a game where nobody "wins," maybe redefining winning is necessary. Maybe a life well lived IS "winning" the game. Dan Savage believes that a relationship that ends is not necessarily an unsuccessful one. Years lived in a happy or satisfying way, that eventually end aren't unsuccessful. That's a type of brittle negativity that I don't want in my life.

My doctors and researchers worldwide are working on beating the bots so that people life me may extend their games as long as is humanly possible and our games can conclude in a way that makes it not only bearable but useful, happy. A life well-lived. 

To put a spin on the computer WOPR from the movie "War Games" is this: The only losing move is to not play.

Play the game, not matter how long you can stay in it.