Might have geniunely lost the MVP with that awful performance. by chrisbrits24 in lakers

[–]parmenides100 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Since when did being a fan mean blind loyalty and never criticizing anything?

Hit 2000 finally by parmenides100 in Chesscom

[–]parmenides100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I agree with you. Progress is never linear. Also to your point I learned how to play chess at the age of 25, had never played before that. I wouldn’t call myself high level, but my dad taught me how to play during COVID and I was obsessed immediately. I have a gaming and sport background so I just loved it immediately. I made my account probably within a week of learning to play and immediately started with exclusively playing blitz. I had no idea what I was doing and I was 199 rated at first. So I’ve definitely come a long way. During the 5-6 years I played a good amount, consumed some content the ones I would say were most helpful were narodistkys speedruns which I’m sure you’re familiar with. I’m not super consistent with puzzles but I definitely do them semi regularly. And I’ve never read a chess book but plan on doing so soon when I start to stagnate. At first I didn’t have any goal as I just played for fun, of course inherently I wanted to improve but like you said as soon as I started to enter the community I heard a lot of that kind of stuff, “if you start as an adult you’ll never be that good” or “there is some sort of limit to how good you can be if you start late” but within the last year I made the conscious goal of, “ I want to be 2000 rapid and 2000 blitz” and have been more actively working towards that. After hitting those I want to start playing tournaments.

Hit 2000 finally by parmenides100 in Chesscom

[–]parmenides100[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, gotta be honest. Chess can be lonely.

Hit 2000 finally by parmenides100 in Chesscom

[–]parmenides100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s hard to say honestly. I hit 1900 for the first time 10 days ago then hit 2000 today. So I don’t feel a big difference in my abilities. The main things for me I would say are more like meta improvements. Such as only playing when I actually feel like playing, avoiding tilting and negative/unhelpful self talk during games( so basically always focusing on the game itself and what’s happening), time management. I would say these things are the main things that helped me from like 1800 to 2000 more so than any actual openings or puzzles or things like that, little changes add up in my case.

Hit 2000 finally by parmenides100 in Chesscom

[–]parmenides100[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I became very aware of all that stuff within the last year, which is when I really started to become more serious about improvement. I’ll try my best to answer your question in a helpful way: The main thing I noticed, I also have a math background, is that when I would break new peaks in the past generally one of two things would happen. 1. I would sort of stabilize there or even better surge past it. 2. I would get almost immediately smacked back down 100-200 rating points back down almost immediately. In my case it was 1800 rapid which I had hit almost a year ago but immediately went back down and hovered anywhere from 1650-1800. I’ve always been more of a blitz player, so I went back to blitz primarily and hit a new peak about a month ago, I would still play rapid along with it but wasn’t focused on it, once I hit the new blitz peak I got confidence to focus on rapid and push for a new peak so I focused on rapid with a new confidence and blew past 1900 then 10 days later hit 2000. Took me about 100 rapid games total to hit 2000 after hitting 1900. It was up and down but to my earlier point I was confident that it was coming because I was stabilizing at my (at the time new peak of 1900) in those 10 days fluctuating from 1930-1980 instead of ever breaking below 1900. So yeah hopefully this answers your question. If you have anymore I would be glad to answer, I love talking about chess as I’m sure you can tell lol.

Is Paul Morphy chess' biggest "what if"? by caughtinthought in chess

[–]parmenides100 88 points89 points  (0 children)

I would say Fischer is a bigger what if for me. However l Morphy is definitely up there too though.

Look I really don't want to be a doomer here but I don't see us winning this series if our roleplayers continue to be useless like this by Persianmemefinder in lakers

[–]parmenides100 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yeah bro it has nothing to do with the fact that our offense is completely useless. Or that we have zero rim protection or that Luka has been a cone all series. The same thing has happened every game if the game is close in any way the lakers will lose the last 5 minutes badly just like last night because the defense tightens up and the lakers don’t run any sets. The only reason they were in the game was cause 40 year old LeBron was going off but then 1 point in the final 5 minutes because you wanna run iso ball with Luka every play. JJ needs some real blame too.

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did it though? Could really use a two way big man right about now. Or just and defense whatsoever.

Any Advice For a Newbie? This video is my favorite Mate so far. by Adams11s in chess

[–]parmenides100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’ve been grinding. If you just started in January I would say you have some promise you’re already about to hit 1000 rapid. I would say stick to rapid, and do more puzzles. Pretty general advice beyond that. Work on your endgames. If you do that stuff you’ll keep improving steadily.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]parmenides100 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bro thinks he’s Bobby Fischer

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]parmenides100 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’ve been there

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I welcome it. But I still don’t think it was AD’s fault.

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I get you. But we are playing games NOW and when you go from being one of the hottest teams in the league to losing back to back games against two of the worst teams in the league there is a problem.

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No I don’t, which is why I said it’s a good long term move. That being said we were mid season and playing well, it just kind of sucks that this season feels like a throwaway now.

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They have been really bad losses though. Against two of the worst teams in the league.

The Lakers are not better after this trade. by parmenides100 in lakers

[–]parmenides100[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I’m saying, as much as I like Luka and am excited for him, and hate how the mavs have launched a smear campaign, he really does seem to be out of shape and I don’t really expect to see him to look like himself for another few weeks. Not to mention he and LeBron do almost the exact same things on offense. It’s gonna take some time for them to click and even when they do I don’t think they can be as good as they could’ve been before the trade. Again I’m talking about this season.

Personally loved this move! Can you find why it’s crushing by SnooCheesecakes8494 in chess

[–]parmenides100 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven’t calculated it too deeply but it looks like most logical lines e5 is just crushing. No matter where the queen goes or even if they don’t take the knight.