How do you deal with being a beginner (the emotional side)

Okay, you're playing lacks grace. Take ownership of that and ask yourself, "What do I need to do get to the point I'm aiming at?" Be honest with your answer and work to improve your skills.

I will tell you right now, though, there is no shortcut to playing well in this game; much less winning. Few people make Grandmaster in a few short years of playing and even those that do constantly practice, study, and play. The rest of us just have to work that much harder to improve and we may never get to their level, but that really isn't the point. We play for fun and personal growth; to see how far we get.

So you can sit there and complain about what you don't have, or you can Saddle-Up and work with what you got to get that grace you so desire in your games.

I may or may not improve and I may or may not make the effort. The whole idea of this thread has been to discuss the emotional side of being a beginner. To me, that means lamenting I'm not naturally gifted so that I can entirely bypass being a beginner, which is the most loathsome stage ever in learning.

You hate being a beginner. There are four things that you can do: (1) stop hating being a beginner, (2) stop being a beginner, (3) continue being a beginner and hating it, (4) stop playing chess.

We've explored (1) and (2) in this thread, and you seem unwilling to do these things, so you should pick one of (3) or (4).

For the most part, and for the sake of this discussion, I've chosen (3). (4) is not in the cards right now. People seem way too eager to discuss (2) which is surprising to me. (1), I'm afraid, i'm psychologically unable to go for. Maybe it's available as a choice to people with other personalities.

People are probably focused on discussing (2) because they have a good understanding of how to advise someone to improve beyond the beginning stages of chess and have much less of an understanding of how to assist someone psychologically.

I started chess when I was very young, so I didn't really have that idea of being depressed because I'm a beginner or any of that stuff. You, however, sound like you are a bit older and are experiencing these feelings. I do have feelings like these from other extracurricular activities, but I try not to let that get the best of me. You will get to where you are aiming at. I promise!

If you have chosen option #3, to continue being a beginner and hating it, then there is not much advice others can give you. It's not logical to keep making choices that make you unhappy, but everyone has their own path. 

I'm not sure what you want. If you choose to continue being a beginner but hate it, then live with the choice you have made.

Most people begin as...beginners. You wanted to discuss the emotional side of it? Well, beginners often feel disappointed, but it's not a crisis situation. They understand that getting better requires a certain amount of commitment. So they do the necessary work to improve, and then they don't play like beginners any more. Most will never be grandmasters, but they become better than someone just starting out.   

Some of us play like beginners even though we are not, and we accept that and find other ways to enjoy the game.  The emotional side of it, for me, is that I love the game and my own place within it. I refuse to become depressed about chess. 

• MISTER_McCHESS wrote:

  you cry yourself to sleep every night, after you tilt even more.=(

I agree.

Being an adult beginner sucks...see what happened ...hilarious incidents!

https://www.chess.com/blog/Abemo/the-pathetic-patzer

Everybody is bad at chess in a sense. Compared to AlphaZero Magnus Carlsen doesn't play that well either.

Being a beginner is the best part in my eyes because it's the easiest to improve. When you've spent years upon years and hit a plateau and know that you've hit a plateau and even know what to do to improve, but find that you are somehow unable to due to human failings, that is when it becomes emotionally difficult. Imagine being kind of talented at this stuff, flying for a while and then hitting a brick wall. Would that be preferable?

I would suggest trying to separate the idea of the beauty of your pursuit from your personal accomplishments at it. Chess is beautiful whether or not you are any good at it. Try being in tune with how you actually play, not with some immovable, infinitely distant standard. If that is the point of comparison, improvement will be nothing but a desert with no oasis in sight. That's not fun, it's true.

If the current state is the point of comparison, it's much easier to find joy in blundering less and less and I would also suggest that you will be able to find fragments of beauty or nice play in your own games.

If you are at the feet of some mountain and your vantage point is the top of the mountain, all you will see is some small dot barely moving towards you. It's much better if you look at it from where you are. What's more, you actually cannot possibly be at the top of a mountain while you are at its feet, so your vantage point is illusory to an extent anyway.

So that's the advice: Change the vantage point, don't judge yourself from high above.

How to block the 4 strike check mate attack form white side :nervous :shock

I learned chess 2 years ago when I was almost 12, and I was really really bad. Here's the earliest game I remember playing in a tournament:

For some context - I started playing chess at my school's lunchtime chess club. Every monday, we gathered to play games against each other. Everyone at the club was completely awful, and by that, I mean I checkmated the third best player 22 times in 30 minutes using exclusively the scholar's mate pattern. They were trying their best.

That's not saying I was good either. Far from it: I didn't know any theory, and just moved my pieces aimlessly, making one move threats, and occasionally exchanging. Since I kept beating people worse than me though, over and over, I thought I should be at least National Master level (yeah, I was pretty uh confident. It's worth noting that, 2 years later, I'm still nowhere near there).

The game I posted above was my first experience in a rated, classical tournament. My opponent was a 1200 rated player. Funnily enough, that didn't deter me at all. I stubbornly clung to the idea that I was still a chess genius, that all my ideas were correct, I just was unlucky and accidentally missed I hung a pawn. I thought that if I just paid a bit more attention next time, I'd be invincible. I could already feel myself getting that NM title. 

What do you think happened next round? This.

(I was white. The game lasted 40 moves before I resigned.)

I mean, I just hung a knight. I'm not bad at chess, I thought, I just need to pay more attention.

I kept hanging pieces until I discovered a new strategy: opening traps.

A whole new array of losses awaited me. 

Many beginner chess players are aware of the abundance of chess-related Youtube videos online - in fact, that's often what they study from before getting a coach. There are plenty of good channels (If you're looking for any, I recommend IM Revy Rozman's Channel) for chess online, but being a beginner, I just searched up, "Quickest ways to win in chess". From there, I learned the "wonders" of quick opening traps, one move threats and terrible positional play.

These traps worked for a while, and my results in tournaments, and in my circle of friends immediately improved. I mean, I was a genius! (haha, or so I thought)

It took a lot of losses to finally convince myself to quit opening traps and study classical theory and games. By a lot, I mean around 50 rated classical games, and hundreds on chess.com.

So what's the moral here: experimentation is key to success. As llama posted above, it took him a few games to refute his opening "brilliancy", and I think learning to refute and tailor your own ideas is important. Even now, when learning openings, I usually know the first 3 moves, play whatever feels natural, improve on my ideas, repeat for 100 games, and then engine check/check the theory. It's a lot more important to learn things yourself. Cling to your ideas. Be curious, and find out why they're wrong, don't ever fully take people's word on it. 

It may be frustrating to lose hundreds of games, but that's important to improve. My lich**s account has more losses than wins, but that's the whole reason I've gotten much better. 

EDIT: omg this sounds soooo cliche and cringe. ahhh ignore me lol

@wornaki maybe many people on here are simply more pragmatic. My chess lacks grace, beauty, economy but I'm a beginner so its inevitable and I accept that. Question, have you mastered anything? Professionally, I'm an engineer. I have a degree and PhD in engineering and have worked at a high technical level for over 20 years in both business and universities. I'm not a grandmaster, my chess is terrible, but I know what mastery feels like and this brings contentment. Is it that you are yearning to master something?

If the plateau is well above beginner level, I don't mind. I don't want to be a great player, just good enough that what I do, I do well (at least most of the time). In any case, my dislike for the beginner stages is the fact that if you have to go through that, you'll become frustrated about not being able to produce good games. As simple as that. That's why I always wish (whenever I become interested in something) to entirely bypass the beginner phases out of sheer talent.

I'm also an engineer and soon to (hopefully) get a PhD. I wouldn't say I've mastered anything in life, but I consider myself quite competent (fluent) in several languages. I know for sure that I would be able to pick up a Western Latin alphabet based language in relatively short time, producing decent sentences (in writing or orally) without much effort. It's a shame I can't do the same in chess.

By this point you're either trolling and laughing to yourself at how everyone is taking you seriously, or there's a significant problem with your mentality. Playing 3+2 blitz every day and expecting to improve past the beginner stage is the same as going to a boxing gym for two months, only hitting the heavy bag, and then saying that you don't understand why you're not fighting for a world title yet.

If it turns out that you're serious, I'm guessing that this mentality of expecting to be good at everything straightaway affects other areas of your life too and you're going to be very disappointed whenever you try to learn anything remotely difficult in the future. Your problem isn't that you suck at chess, it's that you've got the mindset of an 8 year old. Play longer time controls (10+0 at least, I'd recommend 15+10), follow basic opening principles, and double check every move to make sure you're not blundering. Do that and your problems will disappear very soon. If you can't do that, no one here can help you.

Funny how many in here may think I'm trolling. I'm not. I'm dead serious about my feelings of contempt for beginner stages at any activity. The base of my thought I've laid before you all: i dislike the lack of grace, poise and beauty of being a beginner at chess.

I've never claimed that my mentality is healthy or sound (in fact I even used the word "destructive"). You may be justified in believing it's a juvenile mindset. In any case, it is what it is and I said before, being a beginner putting in a lot of effort to produce mediocre (at best) chess games I consider sad. It's the fact that I can't be naturally good at chess that bothers me is you will.

Fortunately in this thread there have been several people who have understood where I come from. With many others, I've been "discussing" ways to improve, which I don't mind, but it wasn't the topic I was interested in discussing.

@kyjo you misunderstand the OP. they have been very clear that their thread is not about why they aren't improving at chess, though many replies including my own are about improvement, they are more interested in discussing their feelings about not improving. the two things are differently and I'm coming to the OPs defence because they have been very clear about this.

I agree. And I think we have started talking in circles, so it's time for me to exit this thread. I'm interested in serious conversations about chess, not this.  This is getting silly. 

@wornaki you make your point well (and have been gracously restrained towards impatient replies including my first message). I think those following the thread will understand the point you are making by now but for many people it may simply not be something they can identify with. If I understand correctly, you are seeking a cathartic or consoling discussion rather than advice?