I played chess in high school and for a while at university, but a few of us who were turned off by the strutting egos turned to bridge instead. Chess is a lonely game: you have no-one to blame but yourself, and no-one to take your frustrations out on. In bridge, the strutting egos take it out on their partners, but the result is bad partnerships and bad play. At the top levels, the game is played in silence, except for "thank you partner" when the dummy comes down, "well played, partner" at the end of the hand, and sometimes "sorry, I should have returned a spade" or "let's talk about that" after a bad result. But in solo games, there's no downside to acting like a jerk, apart from social disapproval, so you get top players who act like jerks - MacEnroe and Fischer come to mind. I guess it's their only release,
I only play online (daily) chess. The slow pace keeps impatient players away and allows time for reflection and for bad feelings to dissipate. Also, I think people who play it are more serious about studying the game and improving long-term.
One gripe, though. People hardly ever chat during the game, and the chess.com message system doesn't make it easy to analyse a game with your opponent when it's over. Larry (HorsesGalore) is one of the few people I've had sociable games with. It's been a while, Larry, how about a game?
in general people's nerves seem more easily frayed in live chess than on-line -- quicker to erupt at you when they lose or when you don't accept their rematch, etc. whereas on-line opponents seem more steady and rational.
Seldom have I encountered an on-line opponent who strutted their ego at great lengths. That seems more the norm in "live" chess.
have others had similar experiences ?