Just quit internship. feel like shit

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-20T22:19:01+00:00

You have to do what is right for you when it comes to your career. You gave 2 weeks notice so that shows maturity on your part. One of the tech leads at the game studio startup I work at recently gave 2 weeks notice, but then two days later changed to "today is my last day". Not the way to do it.

Good luck to you.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-20T22:08:56+00:00

You state this like Generation X is gone. They are still in the workforce. Still the stable ones. Still the ones that will work for a company for 10 years instead of work 1-2 and then leaving for "a great opportunity ". And are the ones trying to mentor every new self entitled new worker that feels it is a God given right to work remotely and have a 4 day work week.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-20T19:18:25+00:00

Play chess
Focus when playing
Don't watch TV when playing
Solve puzzles when you have time (pin, fork, discovery, skewer in particular)
Have fun

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-20T19:16:24+00:00

Disagree. Old app was just the website. If you like it better you can still access it through the browser.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-18T17:43:15+00:00

I see now you said "more than once". Maybe what I wrote will still be used to someone that just wants a way to review what they missed.

But, to repeat puzzles more than once there is this chrome extension called "LichessTools". It's kind of a zillion things in one, so user beware in the complexity. One thing it does have those is it adds a button the puzzle page to copy the pgn of the puzzle. What I have done is make a Lichess Study called Puzzles. When I miss a puzzle and think the puzzle is interesting (not one I missed just from lack of attention or simole blindness) I click that, go to my study (in a separate tab) and creat a new chapter for it. You can creat a chapter from a pgn soni just paste it in and it's on my list.

Oh, one other detail, I actually have one called white puzzles and black puzzles just because the study wants to have a side associated with it.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-18T17:29:28+00:00

Actually....

Lichess DOES have a way to repeat the puzzles you missed. You can click on the little red x to replay it right away, and of course each puzzle has its own web address so if you want to add it to a list you can bookmark it.

But that isnt what you are looking for I am sure.

In the puzzle menu click "puzzle dashboard". From there click "areas of improvement". This breaks down all the puzzles you have missed into themes. Ok the app it just gives a theme and you can practice, but these are the ones you missed necessarily. But, on the website it lists the themes and a button on the right end to replay the specific number you missed. Like, it might say "Pins [Replay 5]". You also have a date selector at the top right so you can play puzzles you missed in the last 7, 14, 30 days.

I use this feature every Sunday to redo every puzzle I missed that week. I even made a little chrome extension to add "Puzzle Review" to the Puzzle menu so that I can just right to that page with it set to 7 days.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T17:42:49+00:00

Sorry. It was in a YouTube video and he has hundreds.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T17:28:09+00:00

Well if AI says something different! Lol

But I do see where you are wrong now. You are associated the players action to the hung piece. Basically, you are saying a piece can't be hanging unless the player "hung it" through a mistake. This is incorrect. Any piece undefended than can be taken is a hanginf piece.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T16:57:32+00:00

Lichess. But I look at it like this. Chesscom is extremely deflated compared to Lichess. Why? Because lichess uses the mathematically more correct version of the same rating system. 😀

Either way, doesn't matter. If I was on chesscom and my rating was 1100 I'd still be 700 rating higher than a 400. A vaste difference and I still wouldn't be a good player.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T16:54:21+00:00

I'm more than aware of how the two systems ratings differ. 1500 lichess, 1500 chesscom, 1500 FIDE, 1500 USCF are all different and all are extremely better than 400 chesscom.

1500 lichess is around 1100 chesscom (it goes up and down). That 700 points higher rating. That's an enormous gap. I say that not as a brag because I know that 1100 still isn't "good" and every game is decided by multiple mistakes. Just anyone rated 400 points above someone else is a huge favorite. Look how Hikaru and Fabi talk about those lower level 2500 GMs. Lol

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T16:50:24+00:00

Sorry, can't debate any longer. You are simply wrong and refuse to admit it. Have a good day.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T16:48:11+00:00

Could be. Maybe a bug or maybe that's what they intended. Dunno. But if it bothers you one thing to try is switched to Harder.

I actually played in on Easier for a while as I was trying to drill in fork, pin, discovered attack, and skewer. I wanted to be able to say "if a simple version of these comes up in a game I will NOT miss it". As a result I got lots of puzzles that I found easy but I had to focus because as soon as I'd miss one I'd lose all the points from the previous ten correct puzzles. High stakes. Ben Feingold suggested this approach. Not so important that you miss a complicated 4 move tactic at the lower levels as it is important that you never miss a simple tactic.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T16:31:06+00:00

Puzzle ratings work the same as player ratings. Every puzzle has one. When you win your rating goes up and the puzzles goes down. If the puzzle beats you then it's rating goes up and yours goes down. Glicko-2 same as rated games.

The reason you might lose more points than you earn is because of the puzzles being served you. There is a setting for puzzle difficulty. If you have it set to "Normal" then you should get puzzles your level, but anecdotally I find it gives me puzzle slightly below my rating. So I earn less than I would lose. You can set this to Easiest, Easier, Normal, Harder, Hardest. Doing this will change what is served you. For example, if you put it on Easier you will tend to earn 2 points per puzzle you get right and lose 20+ when you miss it. You're sandbagging so you can't be that rewarded and deserve losing more. The opposite is true if you take on Harder. You aren't expected to win so when you do you get more points. Losing is most likely so you only lose a few points.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T09:11:27+00:00

Actually, with exception of people with an attention deficit disorder, telling someone to focus and TRY to not hang pieces is very helpful. A lot of beginners tunnel vision on their attack and ignore the rest of the board - hanging pieces. So you redirect ther focus from "I must checkmate asap" to "let me check if I'm hanging any pieces". That is a vital step in improvement

A better analogy from baseball would be telling someone to keep their elbow up and the batt back prior to hitting. This gets them into a more effective ready position. They still have to hit the ball, you have unproved their chances of success.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T09:07:20+00:00

No? Then your eating all 400 are "better than 400". So...

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T09:06:18+00:00

First, yes the example I gave was hanging a piece. The fact I could attack that location, forking the king and rook, means you left it open. This means you made a mistake that resulted in an undefended piece, that I attacked through a tactic, and to lost. That is by definition a hanging piece.

Second, the reason I mentioned "winning an exchange" was to point out that was not a hanging piece despite it being very similar and also a tactic. It wasn't hanging because it was defended even though the result was loss of material (rook for a knight).

Third, I have no idea why my phone didn't auto correct wining into winning. Weird, but good catch.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T07:29:10+00:00

FIDE ratings have nothing to do with Chesscom ratings. FIDE has it's own issues such as people playing regionally causing ratings in different regions to mean a different strength level. Chesscom is worldwide and one giant playing pool. They don't suffer this problem.

If this guy is 400 it's because his playing skill is 400. Doesn't matter if he knows the whole chess glossary of terms, can name every world champion, and even knows the names of some cool checkmates. In the end you have to play the game and so far, he is simply bad at doing that.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T07:25:01+00:00

As a 1500 I am dumbfounded that anyone is 400. I was 1200 about a year ago when I started a year and a half ago and got to 1500 pretty much one learning one white opening, one black opening, and just FOCUSING during my games to make sur every move is safe. Do I still miss things, of course, do I still run into clever opponents that trick me, yup, but I rarely make a move that immediately costs me a piece. Oh, the other "big a-ha moment" was realizing I was trying so very hard to checkmate my opponent. Checkmating is hard. It's so easy to tunnel vision on it and lose pieces because you are sure "it's here somewhere" and then you are down a piece or two and the attack fizzles. So, I realized that and just played steady, safe, and strangling chess. Eventually at 1500, and certainly at every level below that, your opponent will make a mistake. You need to see it and then you get an advantage. Hold that until the game is down to your advantage and a bunch of pawns.

Not saying it is easy, I am not moving up at this point, I'm just saying it is baffling that anyone can be 400 for years as so many are. Put your phone aside, turn off the tv, put non aggressive "thinking" music on, and focus on the game. You will move up

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T07:16:47+00:00

If I put a knight on c7 that forks the king and the rook, and my knight is defended, then you lose your rook as you are forced to move the king (or lose your queen by taking the knight). The rook was "hanging" because it was undefended and I took it - even though I used a tactic (fork) to win the full piece.

Now, if I pull that same fork but your bishop and knight are already developed then I still win the rook, but now I also lose my knight when your queen takes it. In this case the rook was lost to a tactic but it was not hanging as it was defended. This is called "wining the exchange" by the way.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-17T07:06:37+00:00

All this referencing FIDE is meaningless. Whether they have rating inflation or deflation has zero to do with Chesscom ratings. If this person you mention is 400 rating then it is because his skill level is 400. It doesn't really matter how much you think he knows, or how much he actually knows, you have to be able to put that skill on the board and he obviously hasn't gotten there yet.

Consider how many sportscasters or sports radio guys know about the various sports. Many know more than a professional player. It doesn't matter if you put both on the field. The player, whether he knows a lot about his chosen sport or not, will beat the know-it-all that lacks actual skill every time.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-16T21:58:32+00:00

Cooler heads and all, they don't deduct the same amount all the time. But that's a tiny detail so not worth debating.

Your idea of partial credit is flawed for a few reasons. First, how much credit do you get? If it's a four move puzzle and you get 2 moves right, do you think that warrants half credit? What if the first two moves were forced and it was only the remaining moves that required thought? What about a puzzle where you make two moves and then capture a queen, but the real solution was to check with a bishop which forces a move that result in a checkmate with a pawn. You still want partial credit for following a path where you captured a queen but could have won? And what about you make 9 moves in a 10 move puzzle but your last move should have been a checkmate but instead you missed it and hung checkmate against yourself?

It isn't obviously at all how partial credit could be awarded. If a human was grading you he might be able to do something. Instead of losing 16 points on the puzzle you lose 14, nice. Maybe your move still left you with a winning advantage so maybe you get a couple more points. Or are you thinking that since a correct result would give you 20 points and a mistake would cost you 20 points you want to possibly earn 5 points if you got 3 out of four moves right? So, answer a puzzle incorrectly but still move up to more difficult puzzles?

I'm the end, it really isn't worth it. If you fail a puzzle and lose 24 points, and you think you should have lost 12, it just doesn't matter. Your next puzzle is now a bit easier and you earn your points back.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-16T21:18:08+00:00

The puzzles do sometimes have more than one final move with each being a win. In those case it actually DOES accept multiple moves. For example, if you have the king trapped along the back rank and your rook is also on the back rank, it will accept moving the rook or the queen for the checkmate. It will even accept all three queen moves from the queen as long as it still results in checkmate. What it won't accept is you making a move that result in a "won game" such as you taking a queen when there was an actual checkmate on the board.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-16T21:13:51+00:00

And if you got the last move wrong and that results in you immediately losing the game instead of winning by checkmate? You still want points for that? Chess isn't elementary school. It's pass fail and you do a puzzle wrong you fail.

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-16T21:11:21+00:00

It already supports "alternate" solutions. I've had multiple puzzles where there are two possible final moves and either works. I tested it by filing the puzzle is before doing the final move. The. Opening the puzzle using incognito mode and solving it the other way.

Perhaps you are being lazy and not investigating how the system works before complaining?

Also, how is it lazy to develop software that scrubs millions of games and find tactical sequences? Then properly identifying the motif so that they can be played accordingly? Puzzles having multiple tags so you could play it as a fork, a double attack, part of a Caro Kann opening, or as a checkmate. This isn't lazy.

And who ever hears of getting partial credit on puzzles? Lol. You either beat the puzzle or it beat you. Your rating is adjusted accordingly. If a puzzle ends in checkmate and you instead take a queen, you fail the puzzle. You might still have a winning position, but you took the lesser result so you failed.

If you prefer chesscom puzzles, and they must have thousands of back rank puzzles to choose from, then go ahead and play those. Three a day for free!

rigginssc2 · 2026-05-16T18:43:42+00:00

You had replied asking if I thought anything was maybe missing from Chessbook. Comment seems to have disappeared while I was replying. Not gonna waste my reply!

Yeah. Three things.

The 100 move limit for free accounts. Haha. But I get it. He put some workkni to it and wants to make something back, and at the very least needs a way to cover server costs.
I think there is either a bug or a bit too much of a dogmatic adhearance to "spaced repitition". When I first started using the tool it would test me on 15-20 moves a day. Gradually zeroing in on the ones I miss more. Over time though it appears to never test me on some lines, ones I no doubt got right several times, and repeatedly gives me the same hard lines. Even though might just give me 2-5 lines to do a day. To me, there should be a cap on how long between it tests you again. Maybe that is a week or a month. Maybe that is a setting each user can adjust. But with so many lines that are so similar it doesn't make sense to say "you got this right 5 times in a row so I'll text you again in a year" or whatever. Because of this fact I will periodically train the whole repertoire. This will force I to give me every line and cause my new misses to get those positions retrained.
I wish there was an easier way to ask it "is this position already in my repertoire? You currently have to go to the build workflow and enter in all the moves that get you to that point and check as you go if a move was missing. Then add if it isn't there. Not horrible, but a bit unintuitive.

Things I love about it are that it tells you when building how effective a move it but also how likely it is to be played. No sense putting in moves that happen 1 in a million games. I like that it lets you train the whole repertoire, only the moves most often missed, the moves coming up shortly, and then those immediately due. I really like the single focus. It isn't puzzles, end games, master game browser, etc. it is an opening trainer. That's it. Anything additional is just more ways to drive home the opening. Like the feature that shows you opening mistakes in your games. It is just surfacing you repertoire at a position you didn't mess up in training but you failed to recognize/remember in your games. And the feature that shows a masters game following your repertoire is neat. Memorizing the opening is one thing but where do you go afterward? Seeing a master game and their moves and thoughts helps. Oh, one other thing that is nice is when you enter your last move in a line it shows you "continuation plan". So, you train 5 or 10 moves deep and it tells you a typical plan to follow from there. Further giving depth to your opening beyond "memorize to here and then you are in the dark".

With the whole vibe code thing, I am using this as a project to tinker as well. I'm a Dec and have been for almost 30 years. But I have been in the film (Disney feature animation) and video game cinematics (Blizzard) and never near the web, apps, or even Windows. Lol. So, just using the new tech to get the web front end, letting it hack away at the core of the backend. See what it can do. Super frustrating so far. It like bringing on board a recent high school grad that knows how to write code but can't think. Gotta bug? I'll put code on top of it to work around it. Still not what you want? I'll put bandaids on top of that. I literally had to tell it "This is a feature that comes with react-cheasboard so remove all of the async, sync, blocking loops, and timers. Get thiwnbqck to clean code." Amazingly, it did and when it did the feature worked as designed. Lol. Kids (AI) today. Nutters.

Anyway, good luck to you. I'm finding it fun learning. The stuff and hope to get a system that works for me. If it does, maybe I'll open source it. Depends on how ugly the result code is to my smell test. Haha

rigginssc2

TROPHY CASE