chess: fun or evil
Sort:
Wow, I was reading a few months ago about the clergymen in the middle ages having this discussion, except they were more worried about people gambling while playing. Apparently chess had the same mystique poker does now.
So...........who wants to lay some play money down?
Drohan wrote: So...........who wants to lay some play money down?
You know, thats a really good idea!
I know that internet gambling sites have been squashed in the US, but how about a chess tournament (e.g. 32 players, $1 entry, 1st place takes 70%, 2nd 30%). Is this classed as gambling? No raising the stakes, doubling up, or anything like that. Any Lawyers out there that can advise?
In my way of thinking, putting up a dollar for myself so that I can play in a tournament, is a bit like me investing a dollar in my own IPO in the XXX (substitute any business arena name here) market, where all the other guys in the market are doing the same.
If legal, this would involve some serious development by the chess.com guys, but I believe it could make the chess.com site even more 'visitable' than it already is.
Ian
Ned63 wrote: Drohan wrote: So...........who wants to lay some play money down?
You know, thats a really good idea!
I know that internet gambling sites have been squashed in the US, but how about a chess tournament (e.g. 32 players, $1 entry, 1st place takes 70%, 2nd 30%). Is this classed as gambling? No raising the stakes, doubling up, or anything like that. Any Lawyers out there that can advise?
In my way of thinking, putting up a dollar for myself so that I can play in a tournament, is a bit like me investing a dollar in my own IPO in the XXX (substitute any business arena name here) market, where all the other guys in the market are doing the same.
If legal, this would involve some serious development by the chess.com guys, but I believe it could make the chess.com site even more 'visitable' than it already is.
Ian
But,
it would be open to serious abuse, so scrub that
ThomasK wrote: chess should be banned!!! Its just too violent for words!! All that killing those cute little pawns, just waiting there to be trampled upon by those horrid, bullying aristocratic knights, not to mention those devious and rather sinister priests! And of what of that feminist or should I say strident gay Queen! whilst that fat old king just sits there watching. I say BAN the game god know what it will do to our children. Lets find a bridge with a stream under it as Ray Brooks suggested and throw sticks into it.
Lol! I love the amount of humor on this site that is interjected into usually serious situations.
well chess is one of the many arts you can't ban it
Rael wrote:
Oh, and Ray Brooks, you know where you can shove those Pooh sticks, eh?
Bend over Rael!
"Chess is an enjoyable waste of time."
Rael,
1. Chess is a game founded on technique and learning, if a player can't handle that, they should probably look for another game, that doesn't include either of those two concepts.
2. My second remark was a direct reply to your insinuation. So, don't play whiter than white with me, it doesn't wash.
3. Chill out man! Who made you our moral guardian? Get off your high horse.
Olive branch accepted with good grace. BTW I don't memorize any opening lines at all, I just don't have that sort of patience. Any opening knowledge I possess has been accrued through experience. 
as to the beauty of chess (instead of simple fun), the main thing you gain by increasing your knowledge is seeing much more finesses, much more beauty, like studying math and physics brings you ability to understand and be astonished by many things that other people see at much lower level, I can witness the difference is large.
Feb 12, 2008
0
#33
Rael wrote:
I think most posters are responding somewhat meanspiritedly to what is Chessica's legitimate frustration - she may not have expressed it as succinctly as possible, but I feel I agree with what is at the heart of her concern (and you guys who are going on about knowledge and wisdom and science are clearly wildly misreading it to sound profound, you're technically correct but what she's talking about is chess and only chess.)
I was going to make a long blog post about this as well, but I haven't found the exact words. One of my intuitions on the matter was that it that one of the most profound things that can occur in chess is a sense of being able to measure your partners thought processes and emotional state... I've played many intimate on the board games whereby I felt it really gave me insight into the relationship I had with that person. The more rote memorization, the more excess study, the more the game of chess becomes playing yourself, which is fair, I'm doing that to a degree as well.
But here's what I was thinking: imagine, for a moment, that I could beat, hands down, in 6 moves, everyone I ever came across in real life. How awful would that be? A friend and I sit down for an enjoyable game of chess and what happens? It's over before the game even started. We're packing up just after we set up. Sure I'm winning, but that's not the point. The point is to have a great game.
Even if I win, I want the other person to walk away feeling refreshed and excited - having really experienced what a game of chess can offer. This is to a degree self-interested: if I beat them too quickly all the time I'll quickly run out of people to play with at all. But it's moreso owing to the fact that I love playing chess. Playing it. Not winning it devestatingly everytime, as if it proves my intelligence.
I agree with Chessica that it takes a lot of the fun away when you sit down with someone and realize you're playing against a book, not them. Don't get me wrong, I own lots of chessbooks and love studying strategy and tactics, but I have yet to memorize any opening lines - it's why my rating is so low, no doubt. But really, there is no solution - people can engage chess in whichever way they want - playing others romantically, or playing themselves as a intellectual and academic pursuit. So with all that being said - you posters who are laughing at her (the funniest thing you've read in ages? Ass.) or trying to nitpick her argument apart rather than understand where she might be coming from can relax. Not everyone wants to beat their friends up with the Dragon variation of the Sicillian Niwmzowich variation of the Grunefeld or something. Sheesh.
Let's play, Chessica.
Loved this post Rael! I often think exactly that process with people. My frustration sometimes comes from not knowing the language. Perhaps we are able to understand each other a little more succulently when are able to understand which moves are being played against us. More finesse, like saying glorious, jubilant and ecstatic instead of happy, happier and happiest.
The only way to get good at something is to do it a lot, but with chess, just playing non-stop doesn't always mean you will play better, therefore outside materials are needed.
Jun 15, 2008
0
#35
It is scary knowing there are still people out there who would like to burn books.
pulsar8472 wrote:
It is scary knowing there are still people out there who would like to burn books.
excellent answer! bravo!
No matter how well studied a player is, there comes a time in every game where you are on your own.
If indeed I had not learned ,say math,from the experience of others,I may well think 2+2=5.Even the best of the best walked on the shoulders of those before them.
Personally, I find Chessica's view refreshing, and mockery of Chessica's post only reenforces Chessica's points of view. It (mockery) also serves to discourage new players by belittling their opinions, of which, they have as much right to express as anyone else, especially if the forum doesn't know the age and playing ability of the contributor. Haven't thought about it much previously, but I know my game needs a "Pooh-stick" quite often.
As mentioned previously, chess is a game which I would wager even Chessica learned to play from someone with previous experience. The game has been "handed down" by others about 1,500 years. In fact, we know a lot about the history of chess from written documentation and imagery in art work throughout the centuries. We have learned a great deal from documentation of previous games, learning how our earlier ancestors played the game.
Isn't it fair to say that even if we are to play by spontaneity alone, aren't we still learning from the skills and errors in each of our games?
Like it or not, the fact is that chess is a game of progressive skill. If a player doesn't learn from his or her own mistakes, or by watching or reading from others, then are we not sentencing ourselves to hypocrisy? That is to say, Chessica, that whether players read and study chess (moves) of other players, and even if we are left to seek our own strategies, won't our playing abilities progress by our own experiences of trial and error? Won't these experiences be communicated to our next opponent(s), as well as learned by ourselves, one way or another?
I can empathize with Chessica regarding the overwhelming abilities within the game, and disliking opposing drooling, bloodthirsty attitudes out for a kill, which, I too, find difficult to rationalize as "sportsmanlike". The same goes for caustic ridicule of another player's opinion. I can agree with Chessica in that regard, but as for progressing in any game, sport, or other facet of life, life is often said to be "a learning experience." I just don't see how we can prevent ourselves from learning from others, and others from us, Chessica, can you?
I, for one, appreciated Chessica's post, and the various responses. Won't we all be learning something from our shared views? I believe Chessica will reconsider, but we can be grateful the forum provided a good learning experience for all. "The Great Pooh" has spoken.
I think he/she only wishes this game could be more "fair" , with everybody starting with the same chances, including knowledge, she would like to have a game where the only requirements were one's natural skill, and that nobody could overplay others because of using learnt moves or strategies from a book. i guess it would be fair in a sense, but then again, as others pointed out, chess advances with this kind of learnt knowledge, and after all, two can play the same game chessica, grab some book and study some openings/defences and you'll be on the same conditions that other players, or maybe above. it hasn't to be boring nor take a long time, in fact, you could even find fun in researching openings.
Actually chess is a fun game ONLY if you just play it with your common sense, but people have made it an evil game by studying books and adopting pre existing techniques, so much that I some times hate to play. These people actually cheat because they are not playing purely by their mind but by the experiences of others and that makes it like a job and no fun. I hate those cheaters and so called champions and chess fake gods. I like people who play spontaneously, just using their own mind wisdom, tactics and common sense.Because I like to play for fun not to drop others confidence down.Bringing others self esteem down is no fun and i think its unhuman n cruel. we should treat it just a light game and no more. and play using only your own mind and thinking. I ish we have another chess.com just for fun players who use only their own brains !!!
Thanks,
Chessica
This is the funniest thing I've read in ages!