How to improve my chess level

WeakLava, merely wondering if you have an affinity for geology

You mean Arithmetic? In the case of chess, it involves mostly subtraction. Promotion to Queen adds 8. Checkmate is simply +50 (white wins) or -50 black wins.

Yes, sorry about that. I wrote a little too hastily. I intended to express how he did well in the prestigious competition, a link provided below:

https://prase.cz/kalva/putnam/putn39.html

On the note of his achievements, there’s the Feynman path integral, Feynman Parton model of hadrons and renormalisation. As you said, my words hardly do justice to his brilliance, both because Feynman is exceptionally great and I am not good at explaining things.

I'm not sure you understand what kind of "math test" it is. It's nothing like you've seen in school (unless you majored in math). In lower level math classes you're given something like "here's 3 steps, do this and you always get the right answer." In higher maths there's a lot of room for creativity. Some solutions may be good, but others are great, even beautiful.

In any case it's always impressive when a person is able to stand out in a competition where thousands compete.

But I 100% agree math and chess are separate entities.

Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

They both have the letters c, h, e & s in them

Actually, I didn't see he was talking about Feynman. I assume that's not something he's known for heh. Yeah, the real work he did is what distinguishes him for sure.

Cool...hope you stay with it.

I once had a class on it, that I couldnt understand the first paragraph. I went to the teacher for help but none came. He asked my why the author wrote that way....and I had some choice words in my mind for all the time I wasted trying brute force, but I admitted that the author was taking seriousness to a whole nother level. My teacher was like Yup, its 'game time'/real . So what are you going to say, if anything.  My teacher was unconventional for sure.

Dont blame me. I once disclosed what strategy is.

But again it goes back to the start. 1e4 e5 2 Qh5....and the thinking behind looking into the best move. '9pts' is attacking one point. Should we use 3 pts to defend or 1 pt. If one answers ideally one, then they just learned more than most people care to. Because most chase the scholars mate high forever, win now and win quick. Not interested in an education approach.

And this is how some people learn chess. In fact, checkmate is purposedly excluded from lessons for awhile to put that win now mentality away.

Right, so Feynman's success in the Putnam competition was done without preparation, and won by a stunning margin. This achievement is not something that distinguishes him from the typical physics graduate, but rather an indication that Feynman is NOT a manifestation of the standard stories we hearken to: Lazy as a child, but a super genius who revolutionised all of physics. Yes, we do not wish to listen to these cliches. 

The skepticism regarding Richard's 125 IQ can be supported via his success in such a competition, as well as his near impeccable performance in Princeton's math and physics admissions examinations. I did not exactly intend for his Putnam victory to come across as the only source, if not, a prime reflection, of how magnificent he was, but I experienced a brief tip of the tongue moment. Thus, forgetting to mention his unprecedented excellence in the vast areas of math and physics.

@weyltransform
There are many ways of writing a sentence that will convey the exact same information.

I'm an amateur, so I don't know how to put it, but I'd say your writing, while in some ways proficient, ignores the audience. Sometimes simple is best. What sounds good to you isn't always what communicates best to your audience.

Anyway, yeah, I doubt he had a 125 IQ.

I probably have a 125 IQ

I'll never revolutionize anything haha

Point acknowledged. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, as Da Vinci supposedly put it. But some attribute it to the critic William Gaddis, who appeared a great deal of time later. 

What is it called... there's the Aristotelian ethos, pathos, and logos.

While I personally appreciate a logos heavy approach, I think there's something to be learned from the other two. I guess that's all I'm saying.

Never fret. As part of a collaboration conquest, we can establish firm dogmas in the name of Feynmanism, promoting the capacity of the mind as a whole and revering the great Richard himself. By actually getting vast insights into him, we can learn a great deal and our reverence is put to magnificent fruit. Wir shalt rise as enthusiasts, inexperienced in the line of work our great master engages in, and that is our primary principle. As Feynmanists, we abstain from insane amounts of prolonging over the mathematical details of Feynman's line of work, but rather immerse ourselves solely in the concepts. By noon, we shall seize the Gell Manner's conscience and revolutionise our own microscopic Caltech. 

Nothing personal, Gell Manners. Just a prime way to exploit all the treachery.

I don't catch all the references, plus I'm not interested in revering anything.

To initiate our Feynmanism devotion, here is Feynman's arithmetic prowess in an unlikely destination, a Brazilian restaurant. In walked an abacus salesman, and the waiters of this fine restaurant challenged the salesman to provide evidence of his supreme arithmetic skills, up against our great master. The calculations augmented in difficulty, with Feynman managing to get all correct. Soon enough, they came to cube roots, with the waiters picking the number 1729.03. Feynman answered it in merely seconds via... Taylor's formula. 

Calculi strikes once more. 

Not even Feynman? As for the reference to Gell Mann, here is a link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/07/the-jaguar-and-the-fox/378264/

Probably shouldn't invest into Jaguar cars while the Caltech department thrives.

lol

Reverence is BS, and humans are garbage