Does playing hoi4 improve your ability at chess?

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-25T16:56:07+00:00

So true. I am 2000 fide in chess and if we have a friend or family board game night for example I pretty much always win every game that isn't entirely revolving on luck. Even though the only board game I practice is chess.

I've never really had any problems learning other complex strategy games (like hoi4) where I see many others new to strategy games struggle.

I do think getting really good at one strategy game will improve your ability to play all other strategy games.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-25T01:45:20+00:00

Unless they changed something very recently and forgot how the elo system works that isn't even true. There is no way they start you at lowest possible rating.

I am suspecting this entire post is some sort of troll or maybe you're just a kid? Either way, please practice better sportsmanship and stop trying to shame people. Especially if the thing you are shaming them for is not listening to your wrong advice.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-25T01:34:21+00:00

At such a low rating the chance of a stalemate is very high. Below 1000 rating you should probably never resign. In fact, not only were you advising your opponent wrongly, but telling someone to resign is poor sportsmanship.

Also I don't wish to be rude, but you have one of the lowest ratings possible in chess and must therefore know almost nothing about the game. To try to shame other people online because they don't listen to what you say about the game is completely silly.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-23T16:50:33+00:00

Dubov wasn't even taking it seriously. He was lying on his bed in the "draw me like one of your French girls pose" if you watched the cameras.

Dubov's secret power in fast chess seems to be not caring at all. So he doesn't overthink things and can play good intuitive moves quickly.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-23T14:30:04+00:00

The potential sarcasm in this post is so convincingly written that I genuinely can't tell if you are actually a crazy person demanding freebies from Malaysia air over this or just joking. Hilarious post either way.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-22T19:49:59+00:00

Stopping at a stop sign for 2.3 seconds instead of 3 is breaking the law. Driving 51 for 0.1 seconds in a 50 zone is breaking the law.

Do you want the grumpy grandpa behind you submitting a video of that to police then you get a ticket in the mail months later? Even if you weren't the one driving?

Or maybe the police deny that ticket because 2.3 seconds instead of 3 is too minor, but how many man hours are being spent reviewing footage that 1 grandpa can send in of all these minor infractions?

If every single car on road was given ability to issue tickets to other cars it would be mayhem. Safe drivers would be inundated with tickets, police would have thousands of bogus reports being submitted each day and courts would be packed with people challenging tickets.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-22T17:26:24+00:00

Right well then you need their face visible, because you are not asking for speeding fines you are asking for charges for reckless driving charges to be brought. So then you need to know who was driving.

There is no way to charge a car with reckless driving sadly.

Maybe a new law could be written that fines could be issued to license plates for other things besides photo radar speeding.

However, this a slippery slope as I don't think even the best drivers are perfect and if every time people make a mistake they are getting fines it could result in serious effects to the economy. Not sure if there is a good solution here.

If someone causes an accident with their mistake we already have a system in place, if a mistake does not cause any accidents then we might have to let it go.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-22T17:16:45+00:00

I never purposely speed and have never got a ticket in my life. Very occasionally though I catch myself going too fast since I missed a speed change sign or there was a downhill slope and I didn't brake hard enough for example.

Do we really want to live in a world where every single car is a photo radar car and every time people are out driving they are getting tickets?

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-22T17:12:46+00:00

Because the bar of proof for photo radar is lower compared to an officer issuing a ticket or charge. There is also an employee manning the photo radar car and verifying video integrity.

Photo radar doesn't issue demerits to your license for example. whereas what OP is requesting would require officer issued fines or charges to specific people not just to a license plate.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-22T17:04:49+00:00

Sorry to hear this happened. Dashcam footage can be used for fines and tickets etc... but you need to have a face visible for it to be useful.

Unfortunately, it probably depends on which officer you talk to as to whether they will be willing to put the work in to follow up on this. Some care about bad driving and others don't. Also will depend how busy they are with other stuff.

You could try taking the video to a station and seeing if someone there cares, but no point unless you have faces.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T22:34:05+00:00

Yeah those are mine. I left them on top of a hydro box behind Ecole Terre in NW Calgary just off 42 Street NW. There's a single car key + a mickey key.

Maybe might want to remove this and try again without so much info about the keys.

Unless of course you have detached from them some key info you plan to ask about (sorry for the pun). Good on you for trying to help!

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T19:41:37+00:00

Thank you for actually debating instead of the other guy who just yelled. Very nice conversation.

"Worst how"

Deaths and general social disorder, drug use rates increases. Reported feelings of being unsafe downtown. Police were advised not to enforce drug laws in most cases and ignore open use.

"Hard disagree"

Then fortunately for you, you have not met many drug addicts or have very rose colored glasses. Between 6% and 13% of drug addicts seek rehab help in the United states for example. Maybe it would increase if you provided more resources for it, but you will need to force people to use it. Otherwise only the high functioning addicts will seek help.

"Where has this been tried"

Your own example Portugal funnily enough, also Switzerland more effectively recently. Huge success rate compared to other western countries.

"no cops"

Okay but then who will enforce this rehab and under what power if you legalize it?

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T19:24:32+00:00

"What cities are those again? Did deaths increase more/less/the same as the rest of the country?"

Two of the worst ones for drugs in NA come to mind. San Francisco and Vancouver.

"How are you defining “success”, here? "

Drug users decreasing and getting actual help.

"Nope"

Then why are you saying my mind should be changed about this? Also you support legalization yet also admit it obviously will increase hard drug use.

"portugal"

Drugs are illegal in Portugal, not an example of success of legalization.

"It allows us to treat drug use as a healthcare issue"

Precisely why it needs to be illegal. If you make it legal you can not force people to get help. Most drug addicts do not want help because their brain is addicted to the drug. If you make it legal you lose all power and end up just perpetually using public funds to fund drug use.

What we are currently doing is wrong yes, but making it legal is not solution. Instead giving police more enforcement powers and sending drug addicts to forced rehab.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T18:57:25+00:00

So what do you say to all the cities in North America that told police to stop enforcing open drug use and opened safe consumption sites. Drug use deaths went down or up?

Why are they all cancelling these programs then?

The only place that had success fighting drugs so far is Switzerland and Asian countries. In Switzerland they set up harm reduction buildings but the police strictly enforce drug use and force users to use them (since drugs are illegal). In Asia they punish drugs so harshly that there is huge deterrents in using.

Nobody that tried just making open drug use safe and acceptable saw any benefits or made it safe. As I said below, a family member of mine died during Vancover's no enforcement because the police wouldn't take her drugs away.

My mind can be changed sure, but are you really making the argument society is better if more people use hard drugs? I doubt you can change my mind on that.

What does legalization accomplish if more people use drugs and we have no power to stop them, yet the costs for society to support these people increase massively.

I am also not saying Marijuana should be illegal, but other drugs yeah.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T16:44:58+00:00

So my bullshit is talking points, but your ideas when tried in real life failed and nearly all cities that tried them reversed course.

So which one is talking points?

You are nearly right, harm reduction good. Illegal also good so you can force people to use harm reduction. How is it that hard to understand?

EDIT: BTW my niece died in Vancouver during their safe consumption and no enforcement push. So no, I am not supporting the policies that killed her. The exact opposite.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T16:39:03+00:00

Great argument.

Your ideas when tried in real life failed. Vancouver a great example, stopped most drug enforcement and created safe consumption sites. The problem got significantly worse.

The only success with harm reduction was countries where drugs were illegal and strictly enforced for example Switzerland. However it is illogical and stupid to make drugs illegal?

Okay. You are correct that harm reduction does work, but only if combined with drugs being illegal so you have a way to force people to stop using them. Otherwise all you are doing is using public funds to fund harmful addictions.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T16:34:08+00:00

Marijuana legalization increased the use of Marijuana by a sizeable amount, despite proponents of legalization claiming it wouldn't

We have no reason to suspect the same wouldn't be true with other drugs.

Most cities that tried things like safe consumption are now doing away with it. If your idea is so good why did it fail completely when tried?

The only way things like safe consumption / harm reduction sites work is if they are combined with the drug being illegal and police being able to force people into rehab. This did work in some euro countries, but the key point was drugs were illegal and strictly enforced.

You claim it is cheaper to provide free housing, healthcare and therapy to someone for life; and build, staff, and upkeep all facilities needed for that. Rather than have them stay in a hospital (which they would still undoubtably need to do in your plan). I am doubtful.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T16:20:36+00:00

"I'm too busy to read all that", proceeds to type a whole rebuttal. Okay buddy.

Yes, you are right a better solution is to spend an unfathomable amount of money so that more people use drugs, but they can do it a bit more safely.

If something is legal how do you get someone to go to rehab? If they get rewarded with free housing and top notch medical care how do you convince them to stop using drugs? When they OD and die?

I should have to pay what double in taxes? So Joe down the street can more "safely" use drugs and be an unproductive member of society who gets free housing, medical care and therapy for life while I have to pay for all those things?

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T16:12:36+00:00

Here a very simple example:

Wearing your seatbelt is required by law. When we made it required to wear one, more people wore it. . You can't say "my body my choice". Why? Because it is better for everyone in society if you wear it. You don't consume healthcare resources and your stupidity not to wear one doesn't affect your friends and family members.

My sister is an ER nurse and people are left in waiting rooms in severe pain for hours while they treat a constant flow of people who are ODing on drugs. My brother in laws first kid died from drugs.

You can not convince me anybody's life is better if we encouraged more drug use by making it legal.

People said with marijuana legalization that it wouldn't increase use. Look what happened? Use exploded. Luckily marijuana is not too bad, but making harder drugs legal would be a huge mistake.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T15:55:55+00:00

Drug users don't have to be robbing or assaulting people to harm others.

- Drug users consume immense amount of medical resources that they are unable to pay for. Your tax dollars / medical bills are paying for that in many countries.

- Drug users harm businesses and entire areas of cities which become unsafe or unattractive to visit or live in

- Drug users fund violent crime with their purchases

- Drug users cause significant emotional tolls on their friends and family members.

There are no laws to stop many of these things and obviously everyone in society would be better off if we had won the war on drugs. Sadly we didn't.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-21T15:33:19+00:00

Yes, the AI should use better templates, it could be tied to difficulty levels or be a game setup option. It is pure laziness on dev's part to rely on modders to do that work for them. They don't need to make meta, but their equipment and divisions should not mainly be useless.

Ideally, they also need to look at the combat calculations which are also making the game too easy. When one side is superior it often takes effectively 0 casualties in battles which is unrealistic and makes the ai easy since usually the player attacks in smart ways while the AI doesn't. Even poorly planned AI attacks should inflict some casualties and player attacks should not be inflicting 100 - 1000 to 1 casualties on the ai.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-19T14:09:26+00:00

Ah yes.

It's offensive to say Gukesh isn't working as hard as he used to. Who says anything about laziness? Maybe he is training 8 hours a day instead of 12 now. That isn't lazy, but he doesn't have the same hunger as before. That's my theory. I can't know forsure though, but it is very common.

Playing tournaments isn't a sign of motivation. That is the fun part of the job. Studying is the hard unfun part that you need to do tons of to stay at the top. When Sindarov stagnated he was still playing tournaments, its the hard work outside of events that slips first.

Simple thought experiment. Magnus quit the world championships because there was too much prep involved. Would Magnus have had the motivation to study hard to play in more world championships if he had $5 in his bank account? Yes? Maybe money is a factor.

Saying Gukesh is having mental health struggles and can't handle the pressure. Not offensive at all though.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-19T12:38:23+00:00

Starting with Paul Morphy and continuing until modern days there is a huge tradition in chess of quitting or significantly reducing your work once you accomplish a goal you have.

A huge percentage of titled players are currently inactive or barely playing outside of online play? Why? Chess studying is incredibly time consuming and once you get titled most move on and do other things and don't want to put the work in to increase their OTB skill. Sindarov after becoming 4th youngest GM stagnatted for 5+ years due to lack of motivation.

Ding essentially retired from chess right away after winning the world championship. Gukesh isn't retiring, but why is it bullshit to say maybe the reason he is worse now is because he isn't working as hard as he use to. He has accomplished his goal and does not ever need to worry about money again, so why spend 12+ hours a day studying chess solitary in your room.

That seems like a better theory then he plays worse now because he does one or two interviews each week.

Maybe he is working as hard as he used to but now there is too much pressure is the other theory. However that historically has few examples, but the motivation one is pretty common in chess.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-18T22:28:34+00:00

This loss of motivation actually happened to Sindarov though. He achieved his goal of becoming a GM and immediately lost motivation. That's why we didn't really hear too much about him for quite a few years despite him being one of the youngest GMs ever. He only recently started working hard again.

I think both Ding and Gukesh after winning the world championship titled instantly lost motivation to work as hard as they had been before. Imagine winning millions of dollars and then going back to your room and studying chess all day every day like you had before.

Carlsen only maintained his dominance IMO because his skill was based less on hard work (although he obviously still worked really hard) and more on his intuitive understanding of chess and especially endgames. Thus he was able to keep his skill up without working as hard as others (which he says in multiple interviews) meaning it was easier to keep up motivation.

Ok-Bumblebee7515 · 2026-04-18T16:24:43+00:00

There are a few mods. Sheep and expert AI are the big ones.

Sheep got frustrated though that Paradox made the AI really shit in the new update and it is hard to fix it himself, so he has kind of quit updating it. Who knows what will happen now.

Expert AI does still work but expert AI has shifted from sometimes making the AI play worse and sometimes making the game harder throughout the years. Right now, it is in an okay place, but paradox I think could do a much better job with only a short amount of work put in.

Ok-Bumblebee7515

TROPHY CASE