u/Informal_Buddy8922

So, btw I just contemplated about this scenario, and what do you think?

You just spawn at Brest-Litovsk in May 1940 commanding 7.45 million 1954-era Soviet troops. You've got 16k T-54 tanks, 6,000 MiG jets, AK-47s for everyone, and the ultimate cheat code: infinite ammo.

The goal is to conquer Nazi Germany, France, the UK, Scandinavia, and the Middle East, then hand it all to some reformist economists to build a mega-state called the "Ost West Republic." With some catch of course: Infinite ammo doesn't mean infinite gas and other resources, and the 1940 USA and original USSR are gonna eventually realize you're a time-traveling anomaly.

Tactically, this is just bullying. 1940s weapons will literally bounce off T-54s. The only way you take an L is logistics. My Day 1 play is rushing the Romanian and Persian oil fields before my tanks become paperweights. 1940 Stalin is gonna see a futuristic version of his own army and rage-quit, so absorbing the old USSR is free. The only real issue is the US dropping isolationism to speedrun nukes out of pure existential dread.

How would you cheese this? Thanks.

​Even after crossing 2650 blitz on Lichess, I have realized that real skill progression relies entirely on post-game analysis and lots of tactical drills. My own rating gains never came from memorizing infinite sidelines.

​Whenever chess improvement is discussed, the conversation automatically shifts to spending money on coaches and buying premium chess courses. But the reality is that the industry relies heavily on volume over value to justify its inflated prices. Authors fill courses with thousands of computer data dumps and obscure variations that no human, except maybe a Super-GM, will ever encounter over the board.

​I fell into this exact consumer trap myself. I spent well over $400 on a few chess courses from a famous chess course website that sat completely untouched for years as digital junk, with zero rating improvement to show for it.

​Clicking through pre-programmed engine lines gives a false sense of improvement, but it is ultimately just a dopamine hit instead of doing the heavy cognitive work.

If yes, then what's your FIDE rating classical? Be honest, does your blitz rating correlates heavily with your OTB or not.

So, I just hit 122 on Puzzle Racer and I am literally in a dilemma if thats actually good or not or do I keep pushing for more? My blitz rating is 2695, but I just saw an IM score 160 and that is just honestly insane for me.

ok so i’m kinda confused about how lichess ratings actually translate to fide

like imagine someone is ~2650 blitz on lichess, thousands of games played, has beaten FMs/IMs/GMs online here and there, but their fide classical is like 1900 (and yeah they haven’t played a ton OTB)

is that gap normal?? or it is just inflated like that, or is it more about blitz vs classical / online vs OTB difference? also how much do online wins vs titled players even matter

basically trying to figure out if lichess rating is actually a good indicator of ‘real’ strength or not