#love truly does win all

[etae-confus]

it's them

my brain is rotting so bad

i wish i had more to say but it's just them

crunchy bonus gif:

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Peeped the horrors

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[bacchuschucklefuck]

the boy-but-not-that-way-ism of riz gukgak send tweet

[aq2003]

undefined

this scene is such a disaster

[the-acid-pear]

Y'know I really feel like Harry and Dave's relationship goes highly unexplored which is a shame because there IS quite a bit to explore, ESPECIALLY if you care about shipping. But as the game stands I mean, they must be aware of each other. Harry in fact definitely knows about Dave. I don't think he'd tell the fucking weird rotten bunny his terrible boss brought in IS the number one threat against Freddy's since day 1 but even so. Dave I don't think would see Harry as much more than A Phoney™ though, which is always more of an obstacle and way less of a person. Which is usually opposite of how Jack sees his often sole employee. Like, you get what I mean? It's almost similar to 2 with the main opposing routes being Peter and Dave except the stakes are arguably way lower now.

[batsplat]

Is Valentino Rossi the best rider in 1vs1 battles?

ehhhhh *shrugs* I mean. the best ever? like. who knows. the best in the field most years he was competing in the sport? maybe, I guess?

this is one of those questions where I don't really like giving definitive answers but am more interested in how you'd even go about assessing it? like, what metrics are you looking at, what are the criteria, can you put numbers to it or do you have to be super holistic about it or what. I think the 1 vs 1 is already an interesting distinctions, because that is a little different from just talking about wheel to wheel skill. they're related skill sets, but it's not the exact same

so. to bring in an example with a sample set of races I imagine most people reading this are pretty familiar with. let's say we're comparing valentino and marc in direct combat with each other. let's say we put the races where they're fighting one-on-one for basically the entire race in one box, so assen 2015 and catalunya 2016. let's say we have races where one of them is working their way through the field - and it's all building towards the confrontation between the two of them, so say a qatar 2013, a qatar 2014, an argentina 2015. let's say you have a very intense fight that doesn't last the whole race, like sepang 2015, or an extended 'duel' that is basically a defensive ride without any actual overtakes, like silverstone 2015. now, you may have noticed that from this list, valentino... kinda wins a lot of these? not qatar 2014, plus sepang 2015 is in the 'this cost both riders too much to have a winner' camp, but except for that? it's a strong record for valentino. however! the moment you take away the '1 vs 1' qualifier, suddenly the record looks way kinder to marc - you have a catalunya 2014, a phillip island 2015 and a phillip island 2017 go in his favour, while only assen 2017 is a multi-rider dogfight that involves both of them where valentino ends up taking the win. I do think when you're considering 'rivalries' and how a particular dynamic develops over time, it's worth looking specifically at what's happening in extended one-on-one combat and differentiating that from dogfights! because it is a different vibe, because it matters if you're just focused on one guy. but of course both categories still matter in assessing direct combat... even if there are also different skills involved in those different types of fights. valentino, even very late in his career, was still particularly adept at challenging and outsmarting individual riders, and it's a specific format he clearly did thrive in. so. yeah. both of these general categories are indicative of w2w ability, even if they're not quite the same - either in terms of the skills required or in terms of narrative implications

here's another issue. valentino tends to win the race-deciding extended confrontations against marc, but obviously that too isn't entirely reflective of what happened when they met each other on-track. this is because during their time together in the premier class, marc was winning a lot more races than valentino and generally had more pace than valentino, so a lot of on-track confrontations that marc came on top of where typically one-and-done type situations. overtake and move on, overtake and move on. so while you still have a misano 2014 (valentino overtakes marc and marc eventually crashes while attempting to keep up) or a brno 2014 (another valentino overtake where he pulls clear), you then also have laguna 2013 (the corkscrew move is the end of that battle), le mans 2014 (a single overtake around halfway through the race after which marc easily pulls clear), indy 2014 (an early tussle that eventually becomes more marc domination), motegi 2016 (similar, except here valentino ends up crashing), thailand 2018 (valentino can't keep up the pace once marc has gotten past)... like, we get to a place where we're risking penalising marc for 'being very fast' and not sticking around once he's gotten the overtake done, which does also feel wrong? it's an odd balance - because, again, when we're talking Actual Rivalries then it does matter who is winning an extended battle, psychologically if nothing else. like if that's the bit that mattered the most to the outcome of your race, if that's the bit people will remember years to come, if you invested a lot into winning that fight, of course it does matter. but that's narrative, not skill... is this really a good way of assessing how good someone is at 1 vs 1 duels?

I picked the example of that specific rivalry not just because it's the one most people are most familiar with or because I love engaging in discourse about that rivalry - but because I think direct rivalry comparisons are probably the most straightforward way you can approach trying to figure out who is 'better'... and marc clocks in just behind casey as the one who has the most balanced record against valentino w2w. like, biaggi is basically a walkover, and honestly you don't really have that many extended 1 vs 1 duels except for welkom 2004. and for sete, obviously a great rivalry (and I've always believed you don't need a rivalry of equals for it to be good and fun), but also once you get past that sachsenring 2003 turning point then the balance does go out of the window. I've been thinking about this in relation to a longer ask I've ended up massively overthinking (surely not), but I was kinda startled looking back at just how one-sided valentino's record is against jorge. like, unless I'm forgetting some major battles, the most extended scrap you can point to that jorge won is for his very first premier class win at estoril 2008 - and that's also pretty much settled by around halfway/two thirds through the race. but the actual 1 vs 1's that last much of the race? catalunya 2009? sachsenring 2009? motegi 2010? well.... hm. races that build to a battle like sepang 2010 also go in valentino's favour, and even extended tussles like le mans 2011 and phillip island 2014 are more valentino W's. hell, even various short and sweet battles like jerez and indy 2008, misano 2009, motegi 2015, aragon 2016, sachsenring 2018 generally have valentino come out on top - though in this category there's some exceptions, like qatar 2008, indy 2009 and jerez 2010 that all involved jorge besting valentino in a short direct fight

which raises another problem... we do need to in some way acknowledge that valentino simply ends up in more of these fights than most of his rivals - and as a direct result ends up winning more of them. like, once jorge clicked into title winning form in 2010, most of his wins became 'shoot off the line and win way ahead of everyone else with metronomic consistency'. I'm not saying all his race wins were like that! and he did win some great duels in his time in the premier class, especially against marc. but of course, he did that kind of dominating races a hell of a lot more than valentino did - whose approach to winning races was more 'qualify wherever, amble off the line, get moving around halfway through the race and figure things out from there'. now, I discussed this point a little bit here in the context of 'was valentino still successfully mind gaming the other aliens' - but just to bring it back, valentino was deliberately approaching his races in ways geared primarily towards being able to fight his opponents, even to the level of how he set up his bike:

you see this most extremely with something like laguna 2008, where valentino flat out knew he didn't have the outright pace to win - his entire strategy was built around not being the fastest but being able to fuck with casey. in that situation, he's not got the speed, he's building his entire strategy for the win around wheel-to-wheel disruption. and this, plus the regularly mediocre qualifying and starts, does just mean that statistically speaking he's overtaking more riders in his average win than any of the other aliens are. like, if that's your primary metric, then yes! he's clearly very good at w2w! by extension he's also very good at 1 vs 1 duels! if you're looking at riders who have clocked in more than a certain number of wins and do the maths of average overtakes per win, then, yes, I would imagine he tops that metric. does that make him the best? ... well, again... it does feel like you're risking penalising the better qualifiers and starters for being better qualifiers and starters and not ending up in seventh place at the end of every single first lap

so, you've got 'how they measure up against their direct rivals' and 'average numbers of overtakes' as ways to begin considering w2w ability as well as 1 vs 1 track record. then you get into increasingly nebulous waters... here's another potential metric for w2w skill I quite like: efficiency in overtaking. not naming any names, but there are certain riders who, when attempting to work their way through the field, will just. get stuck. even though they have a clear pace advantage over the rider directly in front of them. leading to incredible amounts of faffing about rather than just getting the overtake done. obviously, valentino does like to engage in some faffing about too, but generally speaking he's only doing that when he's in close proximity to the race leader and can realistically get himself to the front of the pack fairly quickly. he's very efficient when he's actually working his way through the field. of course, this is something marc is similarly excellent at, as he has shown plenty of times this year... which. well. this is where we run headfirst into another problem: this sport has changed a lot over the years and some things are simply not at the same difficulty level as they were in past years. so, sticking with those two, which of these is a 'better' comeback? 2006 sachsenring, where valentino starts tenth on the grid after tyre problems in qualifying, at a track he doesn't really love and in serious championship trouble, but works his way to the front before having to fend off the chasing pack that is coming back at him all the way until the chequered flag? or 2024 sachsenring, where marc starts thirteenth on the grid after having been impeded in q1, at his speciality circuit that he's visiting for the first time on a new bike, and works his way up to p2 despite his fractured rib and finger in an era where overtaking is a lot harder than it was in 2006? well, first of all, congrats to both of them, very nicely done. but secondly, that's kind of the problem, right? while I'm sure prime valentino in this era would also regularly be doing that marc/pedro thing where they make the commentators go 'oh ho ho they said overtaking was impossible in motogp these days!!' - at the end of the day his approach involved some built-in faffing about that was also more feasible back in the day. if we're assessing w2w ability, we do need to make some kind of allowance for era - which also affects how often riders are likely to find themselves in 1 vs 1 duels in the first place

here's another plausible metric: last lap battles. this is ALSO something that is super era-dependent. casey in his whole time in the premier class gets involved in like? about four battles that are still going on in the final lap? there's definitely a few I'm forgetting, especially if they weren't for wins/podium places, but it's definitely not a lot. compare and contrast with how the 2017 to 2019 era played out. everything back then was tyre management, tyre management and more tyre management, and dovi in particular was big on the 'eh let's win this race at the slowest possible pace' thing, where everyone crawled around the track as slowly as they could get away with before pulling the pin a few laps before the end. obviously, the characteristics of that era were a) very beneficial to dovi, in that they rewarded both those who knew how to make those specific tyres work (and his decline in 2020 was largely linked to the changes in tyres) and those who were very good at managing last lap duels, but b) inherently were more likely to produce last lap duels than a few other eras. like, in the alien era, which regularly featured gaps of. idk. seven seconds between the front runners, the characteristics of those bikes (as well as those riders) just meant you had very few battles that lasted that long. so inherently, it's harder to judge riders like, say, casey on how good they are in that kind of situation, not least because you are working with such a tiny sample size. and those battles are a big feature of how we remember 1 vs 1 duels!! people love last lap duels!!

now, yes, obviously valentino's record in 1 vs 1 last lap duels is very strong, and there's really only a few he loses over the course of his entire career. dovi is another strong contender in that particular category if we're just limiting ourselves to riders this century (which we are). (unfortunately, those two kinda took turns to be competitive so we didn't really get much of a direct h2h, but off the top of my head I think it's a pleasing 2-2? dovi takes qatar 2008 and le mans 2011, valentino takes qatar 2015 and argentina 2019. I feel like I'm definitely forgetting something.) but again, you do end up in caveat central with this metric. look at marc, who was reliably finding himself in last lap duels specifically at tracks he and/or the honda were quite poor at - again, ragging on that record too much does feel like you're penalising him for managing to get there in the first place. on the other hand, is it really fair to take too much credit away from dovi in handling those situations - surely, at the point where you're arriving in the last lap together, you're at a stage where both riders have a decent chance of winning? on the third hand, it is worth pointing out that dovi is more often than not in the lead going into those last laps, and is fending off a sort of on-the-edge last gasp 'might as well have a go' marc attack. 'last lap battles' is inherently quite a loose term, and how much should who's leading going in be considered a criterion? does it matter if you actually have an overtake or not? does it matter when in the lap the overtake happens? it's obviously quite an arbitrary category... sete makes a mistake headed into the last lap at sachsenring 2005 that gives valentino the lead, while marc makes a mistake on the penultimate lap of catalunya 2016 that essentially ends his victory challenge towards valentino. how do you compare those?

and at a certain point, you need to get away from the headline numbers and start thinking about what it actually means to be good at 1 vs 1 duels. you get into categories like 'race management' - choosing when best to make your attack, balancing risk and reward, not making risky overtake attempts for no good reason when you could just wait for half a minute longer, making sure not to needlessly fuck your tyres while pushing too hard too early. there's ability to actually execute overtakes, which is a question of race craft, creativity, and also about being able to play the opponent. there's various defensive abilities - somebody like pecco exemplifies this, who is both very hard to initially overtake in part due to his ability on his brakes, but is also adept at immediately re-overtaking (a favourite trick of his mentor too, as it happens). to borrow from another sport's terminology, you can contrast 'conversion' and 'steal' rate - if you have the superior underlying pace at crucial stages of the race, are you actually converting that into your maximum achievable result, or conversely if you have inferior pace, can you steal a result your pace doesn't 'merit'? obviously, you get a massive blot in the copy book every time you fail to convert any kind of result by crashing out or by bagging yourself a severe penalty for your race conduct. what about the psychological dimension? your ability to put pressure on another rider, e.g. by showing them a wheel here or there, to force them into a mistake rather than 'just overtaking' them via pure skill? is reputation and intimidation part of your skill set when it comes to wheel to wheel ability? the off-track 'work' you're doing on the opponent, and the prior weight of their expectations for this fight... your ability to study and analyse riders to pinpoint where they are at their strongest and weakest, while also figuring out where they're going to expect an attack and where they won't - maybe even sucker them into thinking it will come from somewhere differently than it actually does... on sheer weight of his track record, you'd have to say valentino is pretty much peerless in some of these categories. and, yes, some of these skills are weighted quite clearly towards the '1 vs 1' element over the 'multi-rider dogfight' element of w2w skills. they're more about terrorising a specific rival than thriving in the chaos

so. what does all of this mean. what's the actual answer. is valentino the best at 1 vs 1 duels. well. who knows. even if we're ignoring the historical dimension and limiting ourselves just to this century, there's too many confounding factors - from different racing eras within that time span to different individual approaches to racing - to allow us to truly evaluate who the 'best' is. I think the cleanest way to summarise it is... from the great riders this century, valentino is the one who most depends on his 1 vs 1 skills (and w2w skills more broadly). that's his unique selling point in a way you wouldn't say it is for any of the others... the guy who gets closest is dovi - but I still reckon his biggest skill is his tyre management and that was the most important differentiating factor that made him so competitive in 2017-19. his ability to scrap w2w comes second (and is absolutely a constant throughout his career), but really that's the bit that allows him to take advantage of the tyre whispering skills... it lets him finish the job, if you will. whereas with valentino, his brains and cunning broadly speaking and his w2w more specifically - and especially the 1 vs 1 stuff - is like, his x factor. I mean... obviously he's also good at the other things - I called him a mid qualifier but of course it's worth remembering he has 55 career pole positions in the premier class, more than jorge or casey or dani. this is primarily a function of his longevity and all of them are definitely better qualifiers than him, but like. of course he's not slow. it's just that relatively speaking, when compared to the other aliens, he's the one who is winning the least via his actual raw pace. here's one metric for that: in valentino's seven premier class title campaigns, he only has the highest average grid position in only three (and during his super dominant 2002 season, it's joint with biaggi). in three of those title-winning seasons, he's the second best qualifier on average, and in one of them he's only third best. the only other seasons this century where the best qualifier on average doesn't win the title are 2015 (marc just beats jorge, valentino is quite a distant third), 2020 (joan mir icon winning a title with an average grid position of NINE POINT FIVE SEVEN lmaoooooo, only seventh best on the grid), 2022 (fabio is a little ahead of martin and then pecco) and... that's it

which kinda means that... can you say valentino's objectively better at 1 vs 1 battles than the other aliens? well, no. I mean, sure, I do feel fairly happy to say he's better than jorge and especially dani, more *wiggles hand* about casey and marc - because with those two there's enough confounding factors in comparing them to valentino and they've also challenged valentino often enough directly that you can make the alternative case. in the end you do kinda go... well, it's very much a 'all these guys were at their best in very different versions of motogp' thing. what you can say is that for valentino, 1 vs 1 prowess is a bigger part of his game than it is for his fellow aliens. his route to victory both on an individual race level and on a title fight level is built around engaging in a lot of these fights and winning them - and, given how successful he's been, of course you do have to conclude that bit of his game is clearly operating on a high level. so when you compare that to both casey and marc, those two really do have other bits of their games that are more important to their success. fewer of their race victories percentage-wise have been won through 1 vs 1 duels. casey is dominating enough races from the front he's not even doing all that much w2w tussling. marc might be losing plenty of these close duels, but he's relentlessly at the front enough that this consistency is what's giving him titles as much as anything else. whereas valentino's entire approach is tailored towards finding himself in those kinds of direct scraps, winning said scraps, and then using those scraps as a way to demoralise the opposition... unsurprisingly, he's got the biggest sample size of that style of battle and has a very high success rate. who knows if he's the best, but he is the most dependent on that specific skill. and he sure has had a lot of practise at those duels, which I imagine will have gotten him just a little closer to being perfect

[ehhlien]

Also, I'm surprised that so many are surprised by Louis' hurtful remarks about Alice to Daniel.. seeing many people are in awe at how ruthless he is, but Louis has never been this sweet little innocent guy.. like are we all watching the same show?

Lestat was initially drawn to Louis when he saw him pull a knife out on his own brother. He was an alcoholic pimp who boo-hoo'ed about his terrible life to a priest, and spoke on how much he regretted putting young girls on the streets while knowingly ignoring their cries, only to marry a rich white man who promised him he could leave his life behind only for Louis to.. want to expand his pimping business and be the dominate one in the industry/area.

I think being able to see Louis be depressed and lonely, struggle with his sexuality, beef with his family, and be overly righteous about not drinking from humans regardless of the circumstances, made people forget the other side to him.

I don't think Louis attracts violence (re: his relationships with Lestat and Armand). I think Louis is equally violent, just in a way that materializes differently.

[crossbackpoke-check]

Why I Am Not Coming In To Work Today [abridged], Jess Zimmerman

part one | part two

[halforcdad]

Really loving how the show is exploring the beginning of Kate and Lucy's relationship and all the insecurities that still lurk in the shadows of honeymoon bliss. There's a lot to love in 2x02:

Kate blurting out, “I want to tell my boss we’re dating,” and Lucy being completely thrown off. It’s Kate’s version of “I want to be intimate,” and Lucy pointing at the coffee shop and going, “Here???”

Lucy being a supportive, stabilizing force for Kate only for us to find out she's equally as freaked out and worried later in her own time (says it to Jesse and then, as pointed out very nicely here, she punches her girlfriend's boss's arm then tries to recover by nervously complimenting his corny apron).

"No, no it's not fine, Lucy... You make it look so easy," is giving "You're always doing nice things for me... I just wanted to show my appreciation." (Both of them feeling like they're not doing enough/doing it as well as the other and trying to do something big to make sure they're reciprocating properly, resulting in them making "mistakes" they feel the need to apologize for.)

2x02 is likely an intentional callback/parallel to 1x07 to show how far they've come:

Kate hesitantly whispering in a dark corner about being compartmented  after Lucy invited her out in front of people vs. Kate, in public, outright saying she wants to introduce Lucy to her boss and coworkers and inviting her to the barbeque (and wanting Lucy's input)

Lucy being all hush-hush with Ernie in the empty hallway vs. Lucy rambling loudly to Jesse about her girlfriend possibly losing her position because of conflict of interest concerns while walking down that same hallway (and then the bullpen) now full of coworkers

Kate not wanting anyone at work, especially Lucy’s team, to find out about them (”Ernie’s not people”) vs. Kate jumping at the chance to ask Jesse for advice despite him giving her an out (in general, Jesse, who labelled Kate 'the Mean Girl™️' in the pilot, now watching her lament over her own incompetence because of a silly misunderstanding all while making silly faces and asking him how to not piss off his teammate/little sister/friend)

"You make it look so easy." "We don't have to do this today." "No, no, I want to, it's just—it's a lot for me,"

is a less combative version of,

"I'm trying to do this your way, you know, be all expressive and smiley, it's just—it's hard for me to be-" "Human?" "I'm trying here, Lucy."

They're both self-deprecating scenes for Kate. She admits she's embarrassed by herself in 1x07 and we see it in 2x02 after she confesses that this is the first time she's ever introduced a girlfriend to her coworkers. In 1x07, it's like Kate's begging Lucy to see her and understand her. In 2x02, it feels more like deep shame (especially when she looks down at "It's a lot for me") over disappointing and failing Lucy again after saying she’d do things differently this time. Lucy, who’s the most amazing woman she’s ever met, who’s crazy about her, who’s still trying to reassure her when Kate can’t even do something as simple as correct her boss when he assumes she’s dating a guy. 

A big difference is that in one, Kate knows she hurt Lucy and is delivering a necessary apology after a disagreement and in the other, Kate thinks she’s hurt Lucy, even though Lucy's tells her it's fine. Kate still insists that it's not, is quick to say “it’s my fault”, and is stressing out big time over a small mistake. It also feels like the difference between the two Kacy scenes is this feeling of Kate “has to” vs. Kate “wants to”. S1 Kate is sharing because she messed up and is trying to cling onto the potential this relationship has and S2 Kate already knows the pain of losing Lucy to her own bad choices and wants to be better (1x07 ends with Kate in that state because she was prompted, but in 2x02 she starts the episode already having decided on her own that she wants to involve Lucy).

In 1x07, Lucy’s hurt and upset, so even when Kate’s being vulnerable (after Lucy offered up some vulnerability first) and turning her assumptions on their head, she lashes out. Ernie’s advice earlier in the episode is light-hearted ribbing, but also coated in the fact that maybe Lucy was wrong to make assumptions from her own insecurities. She can’t be sympathetic towards Kate just yet. Eventually, she recognizes the effort Kate’s putting in and agrees to terms that’ll make her the most comfortable. Kate’s asking for a lot of things in this scene: forgiveness, understanding, another chance, time. 

In 2x02, Lucy can clearly see Kate's distress and realizes the big leap Kate's trying to make for her, for them. Sees the workplace stakes 1x07 Kate might have been worried about and spirals a little too before Jesse course-corrects her. When Kate admits how new this type of milestone is for her, despite it being something Lucy's wanted since s1, she prioritizes Kate's comfort and says they don't have to do this today. It's only when Kate makes it absolutely clear that this is something she wants to do, something they both want, that Lucy switches the type of support she offers.

Kate puts herself out there, lets herself be vulnerable, and Lucy meets her halfway: in 1x07 when she agrees to being a secret and in 2x02 when she's supporting Kate's decision to be transparent and open about them.

The first is a compromise in the dark, in the closed-door break room tucked in the corner of the office, after their coworkers have gone home. Lucy flirts and teases, but she walks away, leaving Kate to chase after her. It obviously means a lot to both of them, but they don't say that out loud, instead choosing to be all coy about it and deflecting. They probably spend the night together, Kate showing her appreciation in the comfort of her own home.

The second is a reminder and a promise that Kate isn't alone anymore because they're in a serious, committed relationship. Lucy reaches out, leaves no room for doubt as she links their hands together, and tells Kate earnestly that she's right there by her side, that she's here to stay no matter what. In the light of day, out in the open, on their way to meet Kate's coworkers. Then, she walks with her into the bbq, stands by her the whole time, and uses that Lucy Tara charm on everyone. And Kate repays all that by being brave, by being openly sweet, loving, and affectionate with Lucy in front of everyone.

[loverofallthingssmart]

when it comes to nani vs sokka in the eldest sibling tournament i’m sorry i’ve got to vote for nani..

[saeshiraw]

watching ror and i just have some thoughts

[4giorno]

oh yeah i managed to beat all worlds in the simulated universe on difficulty 2 😚

[absensia-archived]

i’ve mentioned it before,  briefly,  in a post about charlotte and different kinds of games/sports,  but charlotte,  surprisingly or not,  enjoys the playing and studying chess.  charlotte first learned about chess from various people and clubs who would meet and play in public parks.  at first,  it was simply an excuse for her mingle among strangers and have conversations with people,  all the while allowing the general dis-ease that radiates from her presence to unfurl.  incidentally she began to learn how to play the game and what pushed her to become invested in it was seeing how emotional and focused people would get about the game.  she noticed how people’s minds and emotions could go to strangely intense places during something as simply as a board game and realized that in the moment of play,  the person sitting across from her could become quite vulnerable right before her,  even if they were technically stronger on the chessboard.

playing in a leisurely setting like the park,  charlotte enjoyed playing a game that allowed for a little bit of chatting,  a little bit of banter,  a little bit of wandering around as she made her move and waited for her opponent to make theirs.  she realized that she could directly see the consequence of her influence on their mind in the way they played and she liked it.  she also realized that playing and studying chess helped her clear her own mind and build better thinking habits,  leading to her becoming less confused and losing less of her memories.

that being said,  a lot of what charlotte likes about chess comes from the face-to-face aspect of it.  she dislikes playing chess on the computer and even more so,  playing against bots.  she’s only ever played against herself if she was deliberately following a game sheet of an old game,  so it feels less like she’s playing herself and instead, playing and studying with an imaginary opponent.  seeing as she’s never played in a formal tournament or online,  she doesn’t know what her rating is,  although her gameplay betrays an approximately 1450 and 1650 elo rating.  the range is somewhat large because charlotte,  being the busy agent of chaos she is,  goes through lulls where she doesn’t touch the chessboard for a while.  she also likely won’t get much higher than the 1650 ( the cusp of the advanced level rating ) rating because she simply doesn’t put in enough time for training and practicing.

apart from being a somewhat tangential look into one of charlotte’s hobbies,  looking at char as a chess player does reveal somethings about how she plays her “games” and how she strategizes her criminal schemes:   according to CHESS PERSONALITY,

charlotte is a barbarian.    barbarians do not mess around. they hunt the opponent's king from the beginning to the end of the game. they are attacking players who are willing to accept lots of risk, calculating complications and dangers that make their opponents squirm. barbarians put their heart into the game - a typical barbarian might get upset if something goes wrong in a tournament and have a disaster, or, on the other hand, ride an unstoppable wave of success when things go right. barbarians aren't usually the type to offer draws, and their main goal is to create unusual and complicated situations on the board in which they can out-calculate their opponent.   (  she’s calculating,  focusing her play on attacks rather than positioning;  she plays aggressively and with emotion.  )

[teafiend]

[heartful-cake]

thinking of peach's inexplicable power to generate or find 1-up mushrooms in mario galaxy. like how much energy does that take? is this even usually possible for an inhabitant within the mushroom world? like mario and co. generate 1-up mushrooms by doing enough trick shots and comboing enemies, but i don't think peach usually is surrounded by enemies when she's captured, which means she has to generate them herself right? unless she keeps finding them on bowser's airships or wherever she's being held? is this an extension of her white magic? it definitely fits with her personality and other skill sets, but i'm just so curious how her sending mario 1-up mushrooms logically works out...

[digiditto]