I barely played chess in 2025 — maybe three months total.
But for pure brain hygiene, I jumped back in on Dec 28.

Warm-up: Lichess alt, pure chaos (in a good way)

I created a fresh alt account on Lichess and played 8 games.

• Result: 8/8 wins
• Rating jumped to 1975 — obviously provisional with high rating deviation
• The “this might not be a fluke” moment: I beat a player rated 1848 with 4500+ games

Yes, provisional spikes are noisy. But still: you don’t accidentally go 8–0 while playing like a tourist.

Reality check: Chess.com and the “stop hiding” moment

Then I moved to Chess.com:

• On an alt, I hit 1434 with provisional volatility.
• On another account, I had 1426 — also likely a good streak + deviation doing its thing.

At that point I thought: fine. Enough ego games.
Time to go to the main account and finally earn 1400 properly.

Main account: no free lunch

Four–five months earlier I tried to push to 1400, failed, and even dropped below 1300.
This time the story was different:

• Losses started showing up (good — it means I’m actually in my pool).
• RD (rating deviation) stabilized around 64.
• After 19 games, on Jan 4, I hit 1407 on the main account.

Three accounts at 1400+ is not “lucky variance” anymore.
Call it validated.

What actually changed

The progress didn’t come from nowhere — I could feel my game was simply stronger.

This time I played around exchanges and restriction: I traded only when it reduced my opponent’s piece activity and made their pieces less effective.
I’d read Hellsten’s Mastering Chess Strategy before and couldn’t apply it — now the Exchanges ideas finally clicked.

Next target

1400 is done. Next: 1500.

This wasn’t about big money. It was about applying the method properly.

I had a negotiation coming up — small scale, modest stakes — but a rare opportunity to test principled negotiation in real conditions. So I did my homework. Around eight hours of preparation: analyzing the offer, planning the approach, mapping priorities.

I followed Fisher and Ury’s framework step by step:

• Separate the people from the problem
• Focus on interests, not positions
• Invent options for mutual gain
• Insist on objective criteria

Early conclusion: the offer was already fair. But I pressed on — this was training ground.

I found a few cracks. Minor leverage points. Trade-off opportunities. Enough to work with.

Then came the actual discussion. And the offer turned out to be even more fair than I’d assumed. I was losing ground. At that point, saying YES would have been perfectly reasonable.

But I’d prepared for eight hours. And then Lockley’s voice came back: just ask. And Rohn’s: ask for what you want — nicely, but ask.

So I asked. For a better price. With a BATNA I wasn’t even confident in.

The other side grimaced. I felt the relationship strain for a moment.

That’s when I shifted. Instead of defending a position, I revealed the interest behind it: constraints, obligations, the need to optimize. I even mentioned considering a smaller scope as an alternative.

Something changed. She stopped defending and started problem-solving. Asked about my actual budget. I told her — honestly. And she found an option that worked for both of us.

That’s the shift Fisher and Ury talk about: from positional bargaining to joint problem-solving. It only happened because the rapport was already there. Soft on the person, hard on the problem — it held.

Result: ~7% off. Relationship intact.

Fisher and Ury also say: calculate when it’s worth negotiating. Financially? This barely broke even — prep time versus savings. But as practice, as process, as proof that the method works even from a weak position?

Worth it. The experience stays. That’s the real return.