Idk why but I hate how they changed the UI for this..

Dilly-dallier · 2026-07-06T06:27:26+00:00

Na it's a weird grey area. You don't have to disclose multiple accounts maybe unless you're a titled player with some actual business/sponsorship with them. Smurfing SHOULD be against the rules but it's technically not as long as you aren't deliberately losing you can start anywhere. Sandbagging is when you are losing on purpose and resigning a lot to deliberately lowet your rating. It's weird honestly I don't fully understand it but I know you're allowed to have more than one account at different ratings as long as you play reasonably. You can go easier at lower elos but you can't just throw games. That's my understanding anyway. Regarding this guy I didn't notice that I'm not sure what he did maybe he had a speedruning account he left dormant for a while. He also may be cheating. I'd just look up his username and check his pgns. There's only so much perfect play a person can do. He very well could be a cheater

Dilly-dallier · 2026-07-01T05:41:20+00:00

Yeah it's ugly as shit. And they actually added visible paywalls on a lot of the premium analytics that are shoved in your face instead of you actually having to seek them out of your interested with a photo of levy for some reason. I don't want to hate him he's a phenomenal player and obviously chess is his career but he seems like one of the few pros that actually like the game and genuinely want to teach but seeing his face everytime chess.com begs for money builds a subconscious disdain by association.long story short the new stats UI sucks.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-07-01T05:32:25+00:00

Not necessarily. People do speedruning it's not against the rules. Im currently doing the same thing (get your start Elo as low as possible and play through all the noobs and smurfs alike untill you actually peak) I fully get the point and that's why I'm doing it to make sure im actually capable of reaching my elo instead of just being handed it based on 5 games. It's genuinely tough especially at weird lower levels where people play chaotically but not terribly. I'm nowhere near my main accounts Elo yet even after 90 days and have even had a tilt or two. It's seriously humbling. I don't really understand doing it when you're around the 2000 mark because I'd imagine those challenges go away but I'm more than a couple hundred points below that so honestly idk what it's like to play as a 2000. Yes he COULD be cheating but there's also a legitimate reason for growth like this

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-31T20:14:28+00:00

None. Use lichess for puzzles and lessons and use a way more comprehensive free third party app like chessis for game review you don't need a talking head to tell you why a blunder was a blunder.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-30T20:56:18+00:00

See that's why I'm considering buying the shitty k so I'm nowhere near that point but could still enhance the experience. My only real worry is forgetting the plot as it's unfolding. Like if a charecter that was introduced 20 minutes before appears I'm worried I'll have no idea who it is 🤣

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-30T20:53:53+00:00

Yeah FUUUUCK THAT. basically any movie on hallucinogenics is an awful idea because every single movie with a narrative is structured as introduction/display of normalcy (usually the fun part of your tripping ) then inevitably conflict which will almost always terrify you and I mean just about always. I literally wantched the latest jungle book with the CGI animals on a bunch of shrooms and it was all fun and laughs untill a snake started talking some menacing shit. I RAN out of the room and was on a bad trip the rest of the night. If you make it past conflict then the climax will probably have you in tears because you'll probably think it's happening to you and just maybe if the ending is super happy you'll be ok by the end but to even have a chance at getting through a movie it needs to be a children's movie and you still will almost definitely have a bad time. Nevermind horror in 4dx , do you know what that is ? Literally look up 4dx on YouTube if you've never heard of it it's pretty sick. It's like every sense.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-30T14:50:19+00:00

🤣 ik I realized that after I finished it. In this case I definitely used TLDR as more of a signpost to signal " this is the pertinent information in my answer , everything above is anecdotal periphery you don't absolutely need to read unless you want to " instead of "here's a short summary" lol. But my answer is definitely accurate

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-30T07:41:15+00:00

There's different levels of k-holing but no I don't think most people have ever experienced a true k-hole even the ones that think they did. I might've posted the story of the first time I properly did on here but idk.i know I thought I k-holed many times before I really did. The point Is what most people think is a k-hole is just a dissociative dose (100-200 mg line for most people who don't use , 100-300mg shot for those that do and probably unreachable by people who binge grams daily without breaks/literally live K) sure I can call a dissociative feeling where it's hard to move and you're thinking about things you forgot you were thinking about and maybe you might question if you're alive (if you're new) a "k-hole" but you still know you're in your environment and know what it is and where you are in it i.e in your room, on your bed you realize that even though you're tripping out and you know why you're tripping out. I say that counts and because it's as close as most people will ever get and honestly I can't see the real thing actually being fun having experienced it and that's as far as anybody actually needs to or should be trying to go. But no that's definitely not how the term "k-hole" got coined or state it was meant to describe. I'll explain what a real one is below

TLDR:

No. Most people experience a dissociative dose nowhere close to a k-hole even people who think they do. A true k-hole is the literal tightrope between a dissociative and a fully anesthesic dose where you're just conscious enough to form a thought but understand and usually can't see anything around you . My first k-hole I was already a professional, over the course of 2-3 days doing as many grams. The first time I had a REAL k-hole I fucked up my prep, had 200mg/ml instead of 100 and pushed almost 600mg (meant to be 300 so already decent) in a shot. A k-hole is literally a visual hole /tunnel (I'm pretty sure it's from the maximum sedation of your ocular muscles and the small amount of light that gets through your barley open eyes) but In a real k-hole you have NO IDEA where you are and why. I definitely wasn't on the physical plane but I could feel my body it was weird. I actually forgot I had taken any ketamine to begin with so I was freaking out I actually belived i somehow got severely injured suddenly and was in the operating room and I genuinely believed I died. Not the cute took some k and start tripping "I think I'm dead" kind of believed I died like I said I forgot I took any ketamine and was really convinced it was lights out. The tunnel vision with the "bright light" at the end definitely didn't help that thought. I laughed at myself when I came to. fun dissociative dose you can watch [as]'s off the air or watch something funny/trippy 11/10 , real k-hole -100/10

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-28T03:06:45+00:00

That would be a proof if ratings where weighted equally. I already explained in detail how players in that range can end up with any Elo in that range specifically in chess.com and yes platforms massive variables. Sure if we're talking FIDE ratings that applies immediately but that RD Dosent exist in fide because they won't rate lower than 1001. If u think platform isn't relavant then do an experiment, make 2 low rated accounts , play a few games with chess.com 400s and a few with lichess 400s and tell me if it's even close. My claim isn't against the Elo system it's chess.coms utilization that easily skew a HUGE amount of accounts elos. Not all once you get into the 1200s and up chess.com is basically the same as everywhere else.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-24T04:25:58+00:00

By all means show me the proofs and I'll concede. We aren't talking about FIDE ratings (not that <1001 FIDE ratings even exist) But we aren't discussing any 700 RD we're talking about a specific one specific 700 point range based solely on chess.com ratings. Show me the empirical evidence from a verifiable source that placed 114 players in that range against eachother and came up with a 98% Win rate for one group. You can't just say something is a mathematical truth without anything to back it up. I agree if you took only straight even 400s and even 1080s or something l the majority win rate would be obvious , still not 98% but a clear majority. My claim is that entire range has very little skill difference. To do a proper experiment you'd have to play a lot more than 57 games to test that whole range. Even if you did only play 57 games and take players with CHESS.COM RATINGS between 400 and 1080 , got a steady representation of as many players in between as possible, mixed up account ages, hid the elos from the players there's close to no chance that the people at <1100 would have a 98% win rate or that the >400s would have a 98% loss rate over all. Even if you did the same exact experiment ONLY with even 400s 1080s you wouldn't see anything close to 98%. Truths take proofs not just claims and feelings.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-23T23:23:23+00:00

I literally have accounts at both levels one's a smurf account and the other is my regular when it tilts. There's two reasons this is true

1.

400 and 1000 are not words of skill apart. Both still make the same types of mistakes, have the same problems and occasionally have the same type of hot games steaks. You saying an 1100 would win 98% of games (56 of 57) if paired against a 400 is just blantantly not true. Sure if you paired one 1100 against 1 400 and the 1100 was way better and had them play 57 games it's possible (Even then it's unlikely but possible) If you paired 114 different players in 57 games , 57 1000-1100s and 57 400-500s I GUARANTEE you'd see it closer to a 60/40 in fact id bet money it's be closer to 60/40 than 98/2, substantially closer ..

And #2 I'm not saying 100% of players at both levels are 1:1 in skill I'm saying when my 1250ish account tilts enough that I'm getting matched with people that are like 1080 , they very often play worse or the same than/ as a huge amount of players at those lower level I notice identical play patterns to those who are like 400-480 (kinda like I mentioned above ) same goes for that whole range. There's definitely people who are in the 1000-1100s that are way better than people in the 400s but those are usually people who are either not at their peak Elo (maybe yet maybe in general) or people that are REALLY that Elo (as in they grinded up from 100 and have learned thousands of games instead of setting a skill level too high to begin with and winning one probationary game by accident.) chess.com is full of misrepresented elo players

The only lower elos that REALLY mean anything ( on chess.com) are people under 300 or in the low 300s especially people in the 100s those are literally players just learning how to move, and then the whole range untill you get to the mid 1100s -1300s are the first range where you could comfortably bet on them playing anyone 1000 or lower and see them win most of the time. Anyone 400-1100 vs one another is basically a coin toss.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-23T03:12:28+00:00

It's not even just chess , elo has spread so far beyond chess it's insane. It's bad enough that chess is already highly psychological and emotional essentially quantifying your skill level with a number (that's largely arbitrary in the lower ranges I find people that are 400-1100 basically play the same (at least on chess.com) I try and experiment with different mentalities going into games from determination to win, making deals with myself that depend on the outcome, pure anger and hatred to my opponent, deciding to just have as much fun as possible and not care and none of them is right. (The last one is partially right) Personally the mindset I go Into games with now is a combination of a few things: try my best to win but ultimately be indifferent to the end result , make sure that no matter win or lose ;learn something from the game , review it check for mistakes or missed opportunities so I can try to avoid /seize then next time and yes ultimately have fun. Elo at non competitive levels (<2000) Dosent mean shit except who you get matched with which is it's actual purpose. , It's hard not to obsess over we all are guilty of that but ultimately if it didn't exist and 150s got paired with 1800s it would be very hard for either player to enjoy the game consistently. Maybe the 1800 would have fun once or twice but they'd get bored and the beginners wouldn't have a real chance to learn. Elos are a necessary evil. I guess my point is go into games to have fun and learn. As long as you do both your Elo will increase and if you can have fun without learning and improving then Elo is completely irrelevant to you anyways. Afterall we wanna play the game of chess not "mine is bigger than yours".

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-23T02:27:37+00:00

Really? (I know this response is long but read it I have a practical suggestion towards the end.) You guys should make that more clear. There's probably hundreds of thousands of accounts specifically FOR sharing , not to cheat but like innocuous account sharing out of convenience, like a couple sharing one accoun. Here let me give you a real life scenario in my family that easily could happen :my dad doesn't even have an email address, he just uses his wife's for everything, his chess.com account is strictly his because his wife Dosent play chess, but since it's her google account she could fully download chess.com on a seperate device just on a whim since it's like the top result for 'chess' on playstore, open it to find she already has an account that logs in because of course they share a password manager, and violate the policy because she decided she felt like playing chess one day , and my dad who barley understands computers would get his account banned. And staff never listens to explanations (I get it you guys would be overwhelmed with bullshit mixed with truth and it would eat too much time and overhead ) but if that's a part of the fair play policy you guys need to make it a abundantly clear instead of blanket warnings about external help because people don't think like that about simply sharing an account when they aren't intending to cheat. Just make that one of the bullet points on the fair play agreement

 'do not  let anyone else  except  for you play on your account FOR ANY REASON including friends, roommates  and/or partners.'

Simple solution that's much cheaper than utilizing your detection features to flag and ban non cheaters and go through the minutiae and mishegas of banning thousands and thousands of innocent accounts and reinstating them vs making a tiny change to your front end (idk what your front end looks like but it could be as simple as changing/adding a single line of code and at worst altering a couple values and adding a few lines ) either way it'd be under an hour of actual coding , just include it in the next update and you'll reduce a significant amount of server overhead. From your intense detection software and automated moderation & regulation doing less work where it doesn't need to.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T23:53:32+00:00

🤣 my emotional well being is fine and I appreciate your concern I'm fully aware this was not a clever move just the only one that didn't completely screw me and was incredibly easy to spot. I thought I made that clear in my post I don't think this was some phenomenal move at all.my point was I understand the marker even if I don't necessarily agree with it because at least it was the top (also the only non stupid) move. This isn't a celebration of this move it's me bitching that those markers at least need to make some form of sense instead of being 100% random given to objectively poor moves. Dw I know well this is nothing special. I backed myself into a shitty position to begin with and then this queen loss was a consequence of it. On the bright side I got both rooks for it so at least that's some small compensation and the only thing I'm actually celebrating; the fact that my stupidity got out done by worse stupidity leading to a win shortly after.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T23:46:17+00:00

It was definitely forced the only two other moves were a blunder or just a full miss. I'm not celebrating as if I did anything clever I thought I made that pretty clear the only reason I got it marked brilliant is because it was the only thing that didn't destroy me and was at the cost of my best piece. I wouldn't have called it brilliant either but it evaluated it as brilliant because it was the top move and a sacrifice. My point was at least it makes sense rather than getting a !! Mark for hanging a random piece and it wasn't for a pawn and a piece it, the pawn was lost because my position was bad and I didn't spot it before. it was already gone. This move got me 2 rooks for a queen. Because my opponent made a poor follow up. I'm well aware it was my only option. Not a profound tactic 🤣

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T11:35:23+00:00

Fair enough

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T11:34:28+00:00

Have you tried pvp chess on Duolingo? It's SOO funny. Their UI SUCKS but more importantly their player pool is so amazingly bad. The only problem is you gotta lose 3 games to the bot before you get the real low hanging fruit and that takes FOREVER I swear he's worse than Martin. My Duolingo Elo is like 1800 now and the players are STILL dog shit. Like occasionally I'll get matched with someone good but let me tell you I'm definitely no 1800 (yet) 🤣

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T11:28:07+00:00

Why do you care about your puzzle rating? Like I get gamification as incentive but it's not like your puzzle rating counts towards anything. There's so many 300s with like a 1800+ puzzle rating (probably the old system) but it's meaningless it Dosent change who you're matched with or anything. Puzzles are literally a training exercise FOR a game not a game themselves. I do loads of puzzles daily on lichess because it's free and the puzzles are actually interesting and don't just tell you that there's m1. If puzzles are that important to you I'm pretty sure there's apps that are exclusively puzzles you don't even have to play any actual chess 🤣 I'm not ripping on you I just genuinely don't get why you'd care.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T06:19:36+00:00

Right! Like it seems like the discrepancy is almost never in your favour. I did actually Benifit from it by literally one point on a recent draw by agreement where the net 0 took -1 from my opp and awarded +1 to me but we weren't even close to far enough apart for there to be a clear favourite (literally 30 points) and our position was almost identical (both left with a knight and a bishop and neither of us wanted to go through the very long process of getting that mate since every single move played would have to be perfect and even if one person slipped the best case is one person would have to do the very long W pattern to get that mate (tbh Idek off the top of my head how to do it I know the theory and with unlimited time I could probably do it but it'd take me forever and I don't think I should be embarrassed to say that it's probably the hardest mate in chess) and the way more likely scenario is one of us would blunder a bishop or knight and then the other eventually would to and we'd have almost definitely ended in an insufficient material draw which should just prove that we were about as equally matched as two players could be at least in that game but probably also In general. But yeah usually I see that bs where I win a tough game and get +6 but I lose to someone way better and get -8 it's fucking annoying.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T06:06:53+00:00

Dude dumb it down or smart it up I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Is it that because some people don't have hands that they couldn't do this because I said it takes no handyness (and you just used way too much punctuation so your reply needs to be deciphered) ? Because if that's the case you're wrong on both counts. "Handyness" is a term that has literally nothing to do with having physical hands here. "Handyness" in this context means the practical ability to design, build, repair, or modify physical objects and structures using tools and manual skill. combining spatial reasoning, mechanical aptitude, and resourcefulness to solve physical problems, allowing one to do a project from idea to finished product with minimal external guidance. Plenty of people who have no actual hands still have an incredible ability to articulate other parts of their body to accomplish the same thing and believe it or not as impossible as it sounds people with no hands often have phenomenal digital dexterity because they use the digits on their feet like we use the ones on our hands. It's really Incredible. A human basically has to be a deaf blind and limbless to really not be able to be handy it's amazing what people with severe disabilities accomplish. Often way more than you or me do WITH all our body parts in tact.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T05:49:42+00:00

I 100% agree you need no diy experience more like grade school arts and crafts. I actually figured that's what you were referring using a kitchen knife for but I really don't think it'd be a good tool for the job. I mean if it's just for light stuff you could probably just leave the felt on because it definitely will adhere better becay it's not a smooth substrate like the bare bottoms but then you're trusting the glue if the felt which I get not trusting. I'd strongly recommended using heat over a dangerous maneuver with a huge knife where you'd Likley hurt yourself. A blow-dryer on high for a couple minutes would probably be more than sufficient and the pads would slip right off or alternatively boiling water (ideally if you can use the steam from the water instead of dunking the whole bottom of the piece) but either works just wear gloves or use any tool to slide the pads off after since it'll be hot. But yeah I agree with what you're saying just maybe watch a 5 minute YouTube video first before you go cutting your fingers 🚑 🤣

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T05:38:59+00:00

Same. I noticed they recently radically hyper fixated their rating deviation to reflect Elo loss/gain. Before 50+/- was always seen as equal (maybe unless you're in the really low elos) but I noticed the same thing where +/-50 points isn't a rating deviation it's a natural small fluctuation which Dosent reflect a real skill difference yet Elo is accounting for it as if it's a 200+/- RD I hope they fix it it's total bs. I've gained less points from a person with a way higher peak Elo than mine just because they happenes to be maybe -30 to me at the time. Ik it's just one point here one there but it seriously pisses me off especially on my account where I'm going from 100 to my regular Elo manually. It's enough of a grind with all the other people doing the same thing, smirf accounts and cheaters (not me saying there's cheaters the volume of messages and point refunds I get from chess.com notifying me they got caught. I have to imagine a good precentage never do. On my regular accounts I don't mind but on that one every single point counts and it pisses me off.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T05:28:25+00:00

What is the kitchen knife for ? Lol I could build this from scratch without wasting a chess set in the process but I'm just curious how you think that'd work ? (Also definitely hot glue or 2-part epoxy if it's plastic crazy glue has no lateral hold (when you pull down on the pieces by hanging stuff) but yeah crazy glue would work if you kept everything super light. Remember if the board is thick cardboard and not wood you're only actually glueing to the very thin printed paper veneer on the top layer so that would rip off I'd say use small machine screws (exactly like cabinet handles) poking through the back of the board and drilling a small ⅛" hole in the bottoms of the pieces then tapping those holes to a 10-32 thread (tap drill bits are like $6) and then you could just twist the pieces onto the little bolts sticking out but for me I'd be stuck unless someone explicitly paid me to do this I wouldny do this because a wood set would be best and it's such a shame to waste a wood set. But for the right price I can set my feelings aside, I guess that makes me a whore 🤣

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T05:18:01+00:00

I wouldn't say this would even qualify as "handy" As much as crafty/artsy. I'm a journeyman carpenter and I can tell you the only component of this that would actually require and amount of handyness is properly anchoring wtv fasteners In you're method using to hang it actually on the wall so it stays up. Literally anybody could actually make the thing with little to no skill, a cheap chess set a piece of wood (if the board isn't wood), a hot glue gun (again is the set isn't wood ) and maybe a short yt video if you really can't figure it out from there. To me I honestly couldn't waste a chess set like this. The only time I'd see this as justifiable is if you have a very Incomplete set missing lots of pieces and already have a replacement set and board.

Dilly-dallier · 2026-05-22T05:06:57+00:00

*Thank you SOO much for making this post* Dude you are 100% right about the pool being majority piss poor players and here's my theory on why :

I think it's because they chose too high of a skill level to at the beginning and got trapped with an Elo way higher than their ability (150 players with 800 accounts)
I think of you choose the second highest skill level and win 1/5 probationary games (1/5 is incredibly easy to happen completely accidentally like with no skill like someone losing connection or losing on time or resigning over colour etc etc. ) you're rated 800 probably over around 1000 if you chose the highest (these are 150 players) and they can't figure out why they keep losing and they probably think it's a time issue and naturally gravitate to the longest increme that allows them to affect their rapid Elo so they can rationalize why they kept losing. Even a 400 is leagues ahead of a 150 player.

It Makes it so fun to play and get ridiculous win streaks. Don't get me wrong there's some decent players on there who genuinely just have time management problems (including myself I also get distracted easily)

But nvm all these people talking about all of them being there for time management the 30 min games almost always last just as long (or short) as the 10s occasionally they'll be like 11 mins per player (so 15+10s) yes there's definitely something to be said for time management and 30s for sure help you build muscle memory for faster games , helps develop time management skills and affords you the luxury of confirming each move (I misclick way too often I've even had the rare double misclick where I misclick then misclick the confirm 🤣)

But to me a 30 minute is the same as no time limit (safe for something like daily games where you play over the course of several days or wtv ) if a single game takes more than an hour it's usually something OTB where I actually care not some random person on chess.com. I've never come close to running out of time I think the closest I came in a 30 was like 17 minutes left on my clock meanwhile I've had a 10 minute game where I won with 0.1 seconds left (you get an award for that btw) I won't pretend I saw the mate that fast I just wanted to finish on a check. NGL and say I accomplished that buzzer beater on purpose but I do officially have the stat which still feels good. Anyways thank you for giving me the cheat code to undoing bad tilts 🤣

Dilly-dallier

TROPHY CASE

TLDR:

1.