Not sure about RoseQueen's philosophy on life, but she does have one thing right—STUDY TACTICS. The Tactics Trainer on Chess.com is the best thing since sliced bread! It will hurt at first, but it's fun to see your rating steadily improve over time (mine is kinda like the stock market—variable day-to-day, but slowing increasing on average). It's also extremely fun to win so-called "won" positions that contain winning tactics.
Winning may not be everything, but losing a "won" position sucks.
Fun thread.
Winning may not be everything, but it beats the hell out of what comes in second.
"You play to win the game!" - Herman Edwards, footbal coach.
I play to win, and I like to win by outsmarting my oponent and not capitalizing on mistakes best. A win is a win though. The shear pressure of a well played game can make a skilled opponent make a blunder or bad move. There is never an excuse for losing a game. You either win or lose or tie.
Chess is about winning.. it tells you how stupid or smart you are :) I lose more games than I win, so I must be dumb.. man I hate losing I want to report everyone for using computer assistance :)..
Same as 2painchess, pretty much. Either way I enjoy playing whether I win or lose. My rating is very low. If you believe that this means I am stupid, then so be it. 
I think every chess player is a winner especially if they are playing with a more superior player. I believe if I can play for a long time against an ardent chess player and draw, then I am a winner. If I beat them, I am good on the night. Sometimes, the strain and coming on top of the game make you feel better and learning something new is even more rewarding.
Is chess really about winning? You bet it isnt! Why would one waste time playing a rated game if they did not want to win?
That's what I play chess for --to win. I don't play to draw, or to lose. They do happen to me, more than I'd really like, but, yes, winning is everything in chess. That doesn't mean I'm shallow enough to apply that philosophy in every area in my life--besides, what does winning in life really mean? My take is that if you can wake up in the morning, you have already won--you beat death for another day. Trinkets and baubels are important only to people who are impressed by them. Count me out of that crowd.
Second place in a chess game between two people isn't so bad.
Oh wait ...
From discussions about Steinitz I've seen, you could also say chess isn't so much about you winning a game as it is about your opponent losing the game. Making good moves just maintains the equilibrium. However, subjectively, it doesn't feel that way to me.
Also, winning seems somewhat incomplete after analyzing my game and seeing all the errors, usually missed opportunities.
The answer is: Yes!
No, simple.
^ lol same here, the only rating i can keep over 2000 in ICC is the 15 minute or more one. Forget blitz, i can barely stay at around 1700 there. But hey, the people in ICC are sand baggers for sure. I've played 1300s there that play book perfect openings close to 25 moves deep.
I play chess against tons of USCF rated players here in Miami, and i can hang with them, so i know that what i'm capable of. But really, i'm just an interested amateur, that's all.
Sweeeet.
I always felt a bit bad about my low ICC blitz or 5-minute pool rating (I forget which one's lower, haven't been there in a while heh).
Glad other people have comparably sucky blitz ratings too :)
Chess is all about playing, haven't you ever offered your opponent the chance to take back a stupid mistake rather than spoil the game?
Haven't you ever felt you deserved to lose and admired your opponents slick winning combination?
Are you proud when you beat an opponent who you always beat?
Chess is all about playing, haven't you ever offered your opponent the chance to take back a stupid mistake rather than spoil the game?
Only in the occasion that I play somebody considerably weaker and without a clock or if it's somebody (who makes the terrible mistake of) expecting me to talk through/help them with their chess.
Even casual games at the clubs require clocks + move discipline (touch move/piece) or else you gain nothing from the experience, training wise to prepare you for actual tournament play.
Haven't you ever felt you deserved to lose and admired your opponents slick winning combination?
Deserved to lose? Unless he's a computer engine, I don't think so. Admire? Yes ... believe there is a refutation that he missed and I will fight tooth and nail to find? Even more so.
Are you proud when you beat an opponent who you always beat?
Not really, because you really should go after somebody new who is the one to beat.
On the comment that it should be all about playing : I used to crumble instantly vs. stronger players purely on the basis that I thought of them as Gods. I used to admire the way they tore me apart with a "gee, shucks, these guys are so good" mentality. One of the first things that helped me start getting wins against them is to
a) Realize that they are human and make mistakes too.
b) Transitioning my mental state from basking in these "chess is beautiful, enjoy the scenery, finding the perfect move is the one goal, it's okay to lose as long as you gave him a good fight" delusional rays of sunshine to a "stop making excuses + work really hard at MATING THE BASTARD across the table using whatever means possible."
If you are even remotely serious about playing this game, you just have to put winning on top of anything else.
Chess is all about playing, haven't you ever offered your opponent the chance to take back a stupid mistake rather than spoil the game?
Haven't you ever felt you deserved to lose and admired your opponents slick winning combination?
Are you proud when you beat an opponent who you always beat?
Yes. Probably more frequently as well. I really only play bullet and win on time. I can tell that 50 lifetimes I would never beat them normally. Could be why win or lose. Same fun for me. : )))
If I were forced to respond with only one word to the question "what is chess about?", I would say it's about improving. Winning is obviously an important part of that, but it's not everything.
on second thought, maybe "learning" would be a better choice for that forced single word. I have to think more about that.
While I was playing chess somewhere I notice a verbatim, one was saying it was a Carol Khan, English, Indian... openning. I play chess a great deal but I have never been a student of Chess.
Is there anyone who can aid me to learning the game not just for winning but to understand the planing and other basics. For example the reason why one would use a certain openning.
I normally win when I play with a fairly good player but is that all it takes or it must give one a sense that they are learning something to imporve their game?