ikr
The guinea pigs in your profile picture look like the ones I have
You are too naive to understand my logic .
Okay buddy, there’s a reason only one person agrees with you out of all of these people.
As I already mentioned . It's my opinion . And I know not many are gonna agree. But it doesn't change the truth
“The truth” your logic is very flawed.
It's not . You are yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong .
Then I guess the flying spaghetti monster must be real because you have yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong.
You are too naive to understand my logic .
Okay buddy, there’s a reason only one person agrees with you out of all of these people.
As I already mentioned . It's my opinion . And I know not many are gonna agree. But it doesn't change the truth
“The truth” your logic is very flawed.
It's not . You are yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong .
Then I guess the flying spaghetti monster must be real because you have yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong.
The flying spaghetti monster is obviously real.
Now write a 10 paragraph essay.
I think I’m taking a break from playing bullet after finally reaching to 1500 again after hundreds tries. I will try play one rapid a day while watching TV.
Brilliant Idea. Rapid is best time control for recreation. Can do other things like snacking, social media, TV, etc simultaneously with playing chess.
You are too naive to understand my logic .
Okay buddy, there’s a reason only one person agrees with you out of all of these people.
As I already mentioned . It's my opinion . And I know not many are gonna agree. But it doesn't change the truth
“The truth” your logic is very flawed.
It's not . You are yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong .
Then I guess the flying spaghetti monster must be real because you have yet to put forward a convincing point to prove me wrong.
The flying spaghetti monster is obviously real.
Now write a 10 paragraph essay.
You can't make the basis for an argument giving the point that because your argument is yet to be disproved that it is sound. You need to realize the already existing arguments which have already made such existences of spagetti monsters a low probability. However, you can convince me if you provided the right evidence, although this is unlikely.
yu know it also takes skills to play bullet but otherwise I agree
skills for bullet are vastly different from skills for chess, and the lower the bullet rating the more that is true
at my level its sac all your pieces and premove to win
yu know it also takes skills to play bullet but otherwise I agree
skills for bullet are vastly different from skills for chess, and the lower the bullet rating the more that is true
at my level its sac all your pieces and premove to win
lol
at my level it's "trade like crazy, premove the endgame, try to sneak a pawn past his"
at my level it's spend 0.3 seconds per move in the opening then play random moves if you don't know what to do
In my level its like internet, premoves, sac pieces for a lot fo time, then try getting a better endgame and win it. I usually go trade pieces no matter what and go for endgames.
does that mean playing questionable sacs that make him spend a bit of time, or literally just sacrifice checks to throw off his premove chain?
is sacrificing a piece for time good?
Damn never woulda guessed