The most fun might be to study a bit and then win a bit more... The studying might be tedious, but so is losing. A combination of both seems to be the most enjoyable to me.
Which is more Fun ? Playing Chess or Studying Chess
Sort:
cabadenwurt wrote:
As anyone can see by checking my rating I mainly like to play ( & as a few People have pointed out to me lol ). However some folks love to study Chess including also the puzzles. But in my case all I can say is: let the Games begin ! ( & the fun also ).
Mouse slip, sorry. What I meant to post was how glorious the current state of 1 cabadenwurt. Most of us can remember a similar period from our youth when ignorance of our ignorance allowed play for the sake of play; unencumbered by principle beyond the sheer joy of competition. Enjoy it while it lasts. No, more than that. May you be lucky enough to play hope chess forever.
Thanks for the post Baddogno. Reminds me of my youth going back to Grade 4 or so. Loved to play Baseball and the fact that I was not very good was a minor concern, just loved to get out there and play lol.
Eating a steak.
Hey I'm with you there Conflagration_Planet lol, Thanks for leaving a post.
Thank goodness for the delete button, great for when a person needs to vent lol.
Conflagration_Planet wrote:
Eating a steak.
becoming a vegitarian
Good point DRcheckmate. However I'm still fond of fish, which is counted as Brain food ( and I need all the help that I can get lol ).
One thing that I do like to do from time to time is to get out the old Chessboard and follow along with some expert games. Beyond that I'm not too much into studying lol.
If you want to improve you have to study. If you don't want to study and just play that's OK too, you will still improve to some extent - depending on your natural ability BUT you won't go as far as you can by studying as well.
As far as "studying chess" goes a lot depends on how you define this term. To me reading a chess blog, article or book is "studying" as opposed to playing, alhough I suspect in my case a lot of what i read goes in one ear and out the other (sigh)
Thanks for the recent posts. Some people feel that going thru games played by GMs is a good idea, but it is hard to use the info from those games in my own games. I guess the improvement is a very slow process lol.
studying, because it seems like a new adventure, when you find something you did not know you should be doing
or an admonition to things you know that you are doing
Studying... but not chess. Even organic chemistry is more fun to study than chess. (actually I thought it was fairly easy, compared to my other classes.)
I think it's odd the way people focus on what the GMs are doing, what openings are they using, the games they have played etc etc when none of us can hope to understand what is going on at that level. I guess its similar to the way tabloids go on and on about celebrities- some people are obsessed with what the famous are doing, in life or in chess.
Depends on the studying: while going over opening variations again and again or doing tactics trainer problems can be tedious, if you find an interesting endgame study or brilliant game to review, that is what is really fun about studying chess.
Thanks for the posts. As I'm in the USCF I get a copy of Chess Life each month and I follow a few games that are in there. They also have some good columns in their magazine as well. GM Lev Alburt has a column where he looks at games from players rated at less than 1800, lots of good info there.
I think that studying is more fun by far. Playing over the board is gruelling and torturous at times, but studying is where you deepen your understanding and discover some of the mystery and art of the game. With that being said, the preference to studying might be why I don't do well OTB in general.
ivandh wrote:
Studying... but not chess. Even organic chemistry is more fun to study than chess. (actually I thought it was fairly easy, compared to my other classes.)
I think it's odd the way people focus on what the GMs are doing, what openings are they using, the games they have played etc etc when none of us can hope to understand what is going on at that level. I guess its similar to the way tabloids go on and on about celebrities- some people are obsessed with what the famous are doing, in life or in chess.
I wholeheartedly agree. There isn't much I'm going to learn going over GM's games, even if I did choose to study. Nimzo makes good points, also, for those that want to see the # next to their name go up.
Not reaching the next level doesn't bother me at all. I like to play.
Studying the game needn't necessarily have the intention of improvement. As was mentioned above it can simply mean going over some great games and enjoying them. In my case I only enjoy a game once it's finished, and mainly only if I played well - I find 3 hours toiling over a board only to lose or miss a win infuriating.
As anyone can see by checking my rating I mainly like to play ( & as a few People have pointed out to me lol ). However some folks love to study Chess including also the puzzles. But in my case all I can say is: let the Games begin ! ( & the fun also ).