Chess and vanity

Is there any competitively healthy way (i. e. any way which doesn't lead to a self-sabotage and/or auto-destruction performance-wise, if the results themselves should mean anything at all) to play chess without any vanity put into it? Sure, everyone's vain to some extent, but if one were to go about minimising it, how far could one go?

I'm asking this because I love chess, but recently I've become especially sensitive to my own vanity, so I wanna find a reasonable compromise between having the former and losing the latter as much as humanely possible. While every loss you experience can knock you down a peg so as to positively humiliate you, so can every victory exalt your ego to a height which, at the very least, isn't balanced and/or useful for a virtue-seeking human being.

I've already read about famous chess players and pro gamers saying stuff like "chess is vanity" and "not caring about the result leads to (competitive) self-destruction", so is vanity inherent to all competition, or not? Is caring about personal skill improvement in a sports game like chess inextricably tied to the desire to prove personal superiority by "crushing another person's ego", in Fischer's words? Is that always the main reason why we play chess, be it the only one or not? Or is there a way to remain saintly-minded while becoming better at chess over time, however slowly?

I would like to think that competitive improvement doesn't necessarily become ego food, at least not when experienced moderately enough... but I can't say. What are your experiences and opinions on this matter?

Interesting question. However, my answer is no. Vanity is not inherent to all competition. The key words here are "inherent" and "all competition." Therefore, one counter example would prevail via reductio ad absurdum. My chess counter example that comes to mind would be GM Arthur Bisguier. He was known for his friendly attitude when it came to chess. Some players criticized his "lack of drive" to win, but one thing for sure is that he was not a vain man when it came to competitive chess. 

I think the more common observation (probably correct) is that a lot of players (maybe even most players) at the highest competitive levels of anything take on a more vain persona - but this isn't a requirement of the competitive nature: it is a side effect for many who take up the challenges of identity to labeling themselves by their trade. 

Allow me to explain in another way. I've personally experienced high competitive levels for a lot of things. For example, I play golf competitively. It is one of the few things I began at a young age (there are home videos of me putting at age 2 or so and me playing in our backyard with plastic golf clubs around age 3). However, my father especially loved the game of golf as a game, but never wanted me to treat it as competition for fear (perhaps good reason) that I would lose the love for the game. My father learned golf as an adult, in a business setting of golfing after work. He was a solid golfer, but never great. He liked the game as a way to relax, but perhaps felt like he learned golf too late in life. He never forced me to play golf, but I think it was something I took up at a young age because I liked spending time with him and doing what he was doing. 

Since I began golfing so young (and apparently gifted at it I've been told) I've worked my way through many competitive channels, but I've been careful to never lose that love for the game (and let vanity take hold). The result? I still love playing the game of golf! True that some events can become emotional or competitive, but in no way has vanity or competition dominated my golf life. Despite being at a high level, (in anything, but in my example it was golf) I can realize the ability of those around me. It is really competitive near the top! Of course, acknowledging someone elses' ability doesn't take away from your own: but I think it can sometimes keep one to retain humbleness. 

Unlike some people though, I do not excel at one thing. Some people have mantras along the lines of "learn only one thing, but learn it well." I find this to be terrible advice if taken at face value! I believe that one should learn many things (perhaps as many as possible) to be well rounded and interesting, but that one should also take note of which things they love, or excel at; those are the things you should pursue and "learn well."

In addition to playing golf at a high competitive level, I've also excelled at billiards, art, psychology, magic, maybe chess  and most recently I've been putting my love of psychology into Texas Hold'em Poker (and many other things I'm sure, if I think more on the subject). I've got a lot of things I work hard at - but I don't think vanity has encroached into any of these areas - even the most competitive ones.

I think that it is attitude oriented. If you can manage competition in a healthy manner, then vanity will not take over. Don't forget the classic Greek "Huburis." It is those that are higher that often fall farthest. It reminds me of something that sounds applicable here: "When pride comes, shame follows, but wisdom comes to those who are not proud." - Proverbs 11:2 

In short, I don't think that vanity comes about in competition as an inherent property of the competition. I admit that many players do fall to this, but it can be prevented with the correct self-maintaining discipline. If you are personally concerned that your competitive nature will take away your love of chess, then that is important to note. However, the fact that you are considering this possibility now: tells me that you have the potential to improve your chess while maintaining humble. Typically prideful, arrogant players (in anything, not only chess) are the ones that won't even consider questions like you are now. If you think you are up for it, then I say: "enjoy you new chess journey and a game that most all of us here on chess.com love!"

Wow, Feels like a long post when I scroll through it  I just wanted to give an appropriate response to your philosophical question. I gave a more in depth answer because your question was equally rich in philosophical content.

Thank you very much for providing such a comprehensive insight into your personal experiences and thoughts on the matter! Who would've thought that all this would be written by someone whose username and avatar are clearly based on one of the greatest egoheads in popular fiction?

I take it your answer to my first question in the first paragraph of my first post in this topic is "yes", then? It could be that I haven't stressed the importance of it enough, certainly not from a purely text-highlighting standpoint... but that's my main concern: how can I make improvements without them ever going to my head to the point of blinding me to my weaknesses? Can I even hope to do that?

Shortly before posting this topic, I stumbled upon this article:

http://web.chessdailynews.com/chess-is-vanity/

I also watched this video some twenty days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD08FcgXqA4

My point is, I don't think that one's personal vanity and one's love for chess are mutually exclusive, or at least they aren't on the surface level. The real question is about whether you love chess as such, or you love yourself in chess.

To me, even when I replay someone else's victory, there's always a level of imagining myself as the winner in that game. Such a fantastic wish might be barely detectable to someone not used to examining their own thoughts, but it is there nonetheless. "Wow, this person crushed this other person so convincingly! I have a deep desire to overwhelm and dominate someone the same way, something just compels me!"

There always seems to be a certain amount of care for the end result - the process of arriving at it doesn't seem to matter to me if the end result in question is my loss; instead, I am motivated only if I perceive a non-trivial chance of improving my result (i. e. the opponent can have a technical win, but it still requires him to thread the needle, so it's highly likely that he could make a mistake along the way). I don't enjoy the process of losing if there aren't any reasonable enough chances of winning, but I do enjoy the process of winning even when I don't find it especially challenging.

With all of this being said, these are the only two ways I could think of that could lower my vanity:

1) not knowing the exact ratings of either player, but knowing that my opponent is higher-rated (and not accept weaker players somehow?), and

2) trying to find the "truth in chess", probably by examining the games of various neural network engines; that way, if I can manage to emulate said games, even if it means settling for many draws with the optimal play from both sides, their results don't belong to me - they belong to what we can relatively safely agree upon today as "chess perfection". Having faith that your way of doing things is attuned to the right one, that you can trust someone outside of yourself to guide you through your mistakes, and that even your losses are due to mistakes made during what is otherwise unquestionably optimal play - that seems like a good consolation, doesn't it?

Not that vanity doesn't have every imaginable way of tripping one up, but when I look at my own chess, I've always been someone who tried to enforce his own way of playing, then complain whenever it wouldn't work. Striving towards impartial objectivity in chess seems like my best new course of action now.

Play to improve your ability to play as perfect and efficient a game of chess as you can, regardless of opponent.  The value of chess is in the logical construct itself.  Do you ever replay through any of the millions of bullet and blitz games being played 24x7 and think, "wow, this is one of the most awesome games of chess I have ever seen?".  I would guess not.   What is the relative value , then, of any of those games compared to even the most boring draw at the super GM level?

Compete with and for yourself, to get better at the game.  For people that just want to win to prove they have worth compared to others, there are a host of sports and games that take far less effort to get decent at. 

That being said, it's a game.  Put in the work, but it's a leisure activity, stop yourself when the work going in takes the joy out of the game.

I think it depends on the individual chess player.  For some players there is probably vanity involved whether they will admit to it or not.

I get this type of response a bit  I suppose it is rather ironic. However, I don't know how vain the character Seto Kaiba even is (or became less of). True that even his name "Seto" literally translates to "shallow man" (symbolism intended I'm sure), but it is also clear that over the course of the Yugioh series Seto Kaiba has become less arrogant over time. By the time Dark Side of Dimensions, Kaiba actually seems to have matured a lot and accepted his equal (not superior) role as Yugi's rival (ironically this realization may be the source of his recent improvement and ambiguous potential victory over Yugi in the end of the movie (it is not a spoiler because the audience never sees this duel; however, there is a good chance Kaiba wins (while also a good chance for a loss/draw if that makes sense). Actually, many overlook how much of a role Kaiba has in pushing Yugi to be a better duelist: Yugi would never have been as successful if not for such a great rival constantly challenging him. In fact, Kaiba has become less vain and more open minded over the course of the series even going back to duelist kingdom. Even as early as the Waking the Dragons arc, Kaiba seems to have his own resemblance to "heart of the cards" - especially as he draws out Critias. 

Yugioh aside, I'd like to "officially" address the first question (although my answer was heavily implied). "Yes." Yes, competition can be healthy.

I think you are approaching this problem from the wrong angle. If you are concerned with chess making you vain, than the better approach shouldn't be looking at how vanity impacts others, but rather how you can prevent vanity in your own life: as you improve (in this case, get stronger at chess).

"how can I make improvements without them ever going to my head to the point of blinding me to my weaknesses? Can I even hope to do that?" I think you can "hope to do that." The key is to monitor your own mindset; be cognizant of your potential vanity and I'm sure it will never come about. 

"The real question is about whether you love chess as such, or you love yourself in chess...there's always a level of imagining myself as the winner in that game." As you can probably tell, I too examine my own thoughts. However, I've never experienced what you've described about imagining yourself as the winning side in someone elses' game. In fact, I feel a greater sense of accomplishment when it is one of my games I am reviewing; I typically don't sense that exact feeling when I review games from others. This doesn't mean that I am vain in favor of myself, but I think the accomplishment feeling is greater because I can reflect on my exact thinking process from the original game. A game from someone else doesn't have this (or other[s] emotion connections). They may have annotated the game, but you will never have insight into all of their thoughts. There is a nice bonus to a game being yours, but I wouldn't call this vanity; I'd call this a greater sense of emotional connection to that specific game. Evidence that goes against this concept being called vanity is the fact that I can still feel this emotional connection to games I have more insight into even if the game was not mine per se. For instance, I'd feel a stronger connection to a "random" GM vs GM game if I watched that game play out live. I'd feel closer to the experience, despite it not being my game, nor me imagining I am either GM. 

"I don't enjoy the process of losing if there aren't any reasonable enough chances of winning, but I do enjoy the process of winning even when I don't find it especially challenging." Again, I don't think the underlining cause is vanity. It is the sense of accomplishment. You prevailed in a competitive environment. Everyone feels good when they win, but that isn't vanity; it is just that losing feels bad. A recent study was done on this (don't remember which university tested this although perhaps you can recall) but they observed Poker players (renowned for ups and downs in result despite ability) and then had them respond how the win/loss made them feel (probably a likert scale of sorts). The researchers discovered that a loss feels three times worse than a win! Basically, three wins were needed to "cancel" the feeling from one loss! You admitting that winning feels nicer than losing is simply being honest with yourself, but it doesn't mean you are vain (or have any greater chance of becoming vain as you improve in chess). 

Instead of your two ideas to "lower [your] vanity" - I'd simply learn chess the most you can (like anyone else) and take note of how you feel during this journey of improvement. If you are feeling disappointed, then don't give up; chess is challenging, as are most things in life that require improvement. If you are feeling confident, then great: you have the right mindset to stay motivated. If you are feeling vanity, arrogance, or losing your love for chess: then I'd consider figuring out what is causing it. If you reach this stage, the cause is likely a false sense of your perceived ability versus your actual ability. Even the best in the world sometimes second guess themselves; doubt is the enemy of improvement. If you feel like you are better than everyone else, but you are clearly not in the echelon of chess players, then you are probably just fooling yourself. Even the best in the world, usually feel like they have a lot to learn and so should you. This says more about the mindset of improvement than it does about chess.

I can understand the first highlighted bit only if somehow you aren't rooting for either one of the third parties in the games that aren't yours; otherwise, any kind of favoritism points us to the science which says that we share the results of those we're rooting for as if they were our own... and that, frankly, IS vain. Not that it's not within the rights of any person to emotionally identify with an individual or a group of their choosing for whatever reason, it's just that I don't want to feed myself that way.

For the next two highlights, I was wondering, just how exactly does confidence differ from vanity? In this case, we must be talking about self-confidence in particular, because we invest our own mental faculties into chess instead of relying on someone else's (and I don't think any theoretical preparations really count, either, because it's your own result at the end of the game; how often is one able to attribute their victory purely to following known theory, while ignoring their abilities of memorisation and technique? And would such a person discredit that victory of theirs? Didn't think so)... right? Or are we talking some synergy with Caissa after all? Anyway, it seems like too thin a line separating a good faith in one's own abilities from patting oneself on the back. Otherwise, if you have a level of positive confidence and you win, then it's confidence, but if you have that same level and lose, then it's vanity??! That seems highly dubious, because the feeling is exactly the same before both of those hypothetical results, only in one instance you turn out to be right, and in the other one you turn out to be wrong. To me, assuming personal inability to accurately perceive the outcome of the game seems like the only correct option from the emotional standpoint, and while I understand that losses probably do teach us more when they're genuinely unexpected, why would anyone want to risk feeling right if they know they might feel wrong afterwards? It's like the active effort of minimising mistakes doesn't matter.

Finally, what do you mean, "doubt is the enemy of improvement"? Maybe if you translate doubt to mean self-consciousness, in the Jeet Kune Do sense that it's an obstacle to performing a technique, but then I wouldn't call it doubt; there's a difference between a vain doubt (i. e. unbelief) and a productive doubt which pushes us forward to find new solutions for problems (which is pretty much a basis for any and all sciences).

P. S. Just got severely outplayed on Lichess by the same person twice in a row, didn't really understand much that was going on in either of the games, and for some reason, today the feeling sucks noticeably more than usual... I feel too hurt to improve, and I didn't even have any particularly high hopes about the games, I just wanted to try some small opening lines that I prepared (very basic variations). I think I actually got tricked into unfamiliar openings both times, and I couldn't stop to plan better with a 7+2 time control.

And before someone suggest that I play longer time controls, I can only say that... I'd rather quit. If I can't defeat my vanity on the chessboard, I'm probably better off somewhere else, somewhere I can genuinely contribute more to society. Otherwise, I'm afraid I'll have too many losses that I haven't learnt anything sufficient from, and I'll just waste my time repeating mistakes. Here's to sounding like an entitled rectum. I'm sorry.

What other activities are you considering such that your vanity will not play an excessive role in it?

I would first like to mention that I want this post to be just as philosophical as your post; I feel that it wouldn't be proper respect to give a laymans' response to serious questions. To make things easier, I quoted your points I'll address as bulleted numbering questions.

1) Before I get into the differences, it makes sense to first understand what the definition for each is. The definition for "vanity" (as it is being used here) is "excessive pride in or admiration of one's own achievements or appearance." The definition for "confidence" (as it is being used here) is "a feeling of self-assurance arising from one's appreciation of one's own abilities or qualities." 

I personally think that a decent summary of the difference could then be that "confidence" is "self-assurance" but "vanity" is "excessive pride." In short, confidence would then be a feeling to make you trust in your abilities; vanity would be overconfidence into prideful abilities that you do not posses. For example: a 1500 rated chess player might enter a tournament with "confidence" by telling themselves that they will play well; if that same player pridefully squaks out that they can take down that 2000 rated player with piece odds, then I might suspect that they are just "vain" and disregard their delusions of what is realistic. Vanity is prideful overconfidence; confidence alone can be beneficial, but vanity is when one takes this belief too far. 

2) Your point here would indeed be dubious (I agree, you would be correct) if that was an accurate representation of those defined terms. However, I don't believe it is accurate because the results should not be related to the prior feeling. Confidence/vanity levels are independent from the results. Overconfident/vain players can still win and confident players (a healthy amount of confidence) can still potentially lose. It more comes down to how accurate the person's representation of their abilities aligns with the real abilities they posses. A "common person" is keen on these differences, but they phrase it a lot more informally. People who are vain, but still win are called something along the lines of "arrogant jerks." Confident people who lose are usually called something like "people of persistence/determination." 

It reminds me of professional Poker players justifying their decisions mathematically. If someone goes  all-in on a straight draw (a polarized hand where they typically either get it and win, or miss it and have nothing/lose) with pot/implied odds far below the level calculated to be sound (a bad move mathematically since doing that same play multiple times would result in a net loss), then a pro would say that this is a bad move regardless of what the result is. Imagine then that in this same situation, they get the straight draw and win the hand: does this then change anything? A pro set on the math side will say : "no, nothing changes; it was still a bad play that happened to win (and the good play would have lost)." Our chess example with confidence versus vanity has the same idea. A person of vanity that happened to win is still a vain person. 

3) "Doubt is the enemy of improvement." was a paraphrased reference that apparently went over your head. In the 2014 CW series The Flash, the character Harrison Wells (for CW fans, I am calling him by this name to avoid potential spoilers) is training the main character and gives him a bit of a motivational speech where he states that "doubt is the enemy [of improvement]." Yes, it is a reference you missed: but I parroted this saying because it has its applications here. Whenever someone is trying to improve at something (especially a mentally straining game like chess), doubt really is the enemy. In the case of chess, this certainly holds true. Is the current chess world champion GM Magnus Carlsen the enemy of upcoming chess players simply because he is perceived as the highest in ability? No! Is your friend, who is a stronger chess player than you, your enemy? No! The enemy for your journey of mentally getting through the chess improvement process is doubt! It is doubt that you will fail; it is doubt that you aren't good enough; and it is doubt that you can't reach your potential. "Doubt is the enemy" because only you can control your actions and mentally or physically is no different. 

I hope this response is received as insightful, or philosophical rather than unnecessarily long, or redundant. You had some interesting questions that I think were of legitimate intent and I wanted to ensure I gave you at least a matched response.

I think I get your point here, but being that the analogy in question deals with the issue of calculated risks in a game that's very distinctly not a zero-sum game, I'm skeptical of its conceptual translation to chess matters, simply because there are no impartial forces (like the force of random draw) in chess, so starting from an equal footing (well, mostly equal, because half a move is still some kind of difference, although not enough to force a win for either side with perfect play) and having all the information right in front of them, chess players don't have to deal with the same kind of luck in their games, do they? Even with a computer-evaluated average move strength per player rating, there's still no valid statistical approximation of what constitutes a safe/good or unsafe/bad play or move; instead, we use positional awareness to determine those, with statistics playing a role only barely in creating some tiers for the most consistent highest-level play only (e. g. you can say that the Sicilian Dragon is a risky opening, and thus not the best on average, but that's all).

If we substitute the concept of the unknowable (in the absolute sense, so not unapproximatable) for what we call luck in poker, and then also equate the unknowable with what we do not know and/or understand during a chess game (for the most part, because discoveries still can and do happen OTB, but there's never an infinite time available, so it's very unoptimal to rely on that), then we stumble upon the following problem: in a certain sense, the better chess player practically manipulates luck. "A good player is always lucky", indeed! Or, differently put, a grandmaster eliminates the possibility of "luck" working against them, whilst all a patzer sees is a chaos they're unable to properly comprehend, understand, and ultimately - control... so it seems random to them.

In chess, exact knowledge trumps general knowledge, and strategies must be built on tactical soundness, otherwise they're worthless in and of themselves; meanwhile, in poker, any exact knowledge is nigh-unattainable, so better general knowledge is key... and yes, the shorter the time format, the greater the necessary focus on chess intuition, but then between two players of equal relative intuitions, the one to process the exact lines faster just wins.

In conclusion, how does one avoid vanity in a game which allows enslaving luck instead of respecting it? And where exactly do we draw the line between the self-assurance and excessive pride?

P. S. I've watched a few episodes of The Flash, but not in order, and I definitely did miss that one with the doubt sentence... maybe I should watch it properly this time.

Anything that is focused on the flow of the activity itself, while having a strong means of altruistic application. Ideally, there should be no reward for myself, other than the non-egotistical pleasure that keeps me further focused on the activity; and in order for it to be useful in the grander scheme of things, as it should (because making an unconditionally loving connection towards others is the opposite of vanity), it should be of some kind of kind service to others. Financial income would be welcome as an additional bonus, so long as it doesn't compromise the necessary basic virtues of the activity.

I'm a classically-trained violinist, so that should check a few boxes already, except that I've become disillusioned with the profession and the people who occupy it, so it's nigh-impossible for me to approach the available related activities with any semblance of purity. Instead of becoming genuinely better, I just became more and more conceited as time went by, because my intolerance towards other prideful musicians developed out of my personal jealousy and overall envy towards them.

Chess = Vanity + dv

with dv = dependent variable (which is you)

don't think u can make Vanity = 0, but i think u can get close to it.

I agree that my Poker example was an understandable one, yet not perfect. Of course, we know by Bonini's Paradox that no example can be the perfect model except that thing itself (which would disregard the meaning of a model). You are correct that Poker and Chess do have one glaring difference; the element of luck present. Poker undeniably has an element of luck to it (to those that do not believe in luck, then accept that the game involves probabilities) and no amount of practice can completely eliminate luck in Poker. Conversely, Chess has no luck whatsoever. One may be interpreted as "lucky" if the opponent misplayed in some way, but this isn't true luck because the fault was not a mathematical one, but rather just something the opponent couldn't (or didn't) correctly calculate. You are right; Poker and Chess differ in that luck has different roles in each (Poker involves risk management to minimize the impacts of luck and chess involves no luck at all).

However, as far as vanity is concerned (in the original question) - luck has nothing to do with it. I think it is fair to say that there are vain chess players and vain poker players; there are confident chess players and confident poker players. Then "how does one avoid vanity in a game which allows enslaving luck...?" I personally don't think luck has much to do with it. Vanity is an attitude; a personality; a character trait. Luck involved may muddy the waters and make it tougher to detect vanity in others (versus detecting their true ability), but I think the problem has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with ones thinking and perception of themselves (vanity is the skewed, false perception of those abilities).

"And where exactly do we draw the line between self-assurance and excessive pride?" This is ambiguous depending how strict a person's definition is. For the most part though, I think most people can tell when they meet a vain person; likewise they can tell when someone is confident. The difference (where the line is drawn) is a philosophical topic, but I usually think of vanity in a negative sense (too much confidence and/or arrogance) and confidence as a positive sense of optimistically believing in your abilities.

Once again, KeSeto, thank you for providing detailed and genuinely deep responses to my ponderings!

BTW, Lola, how do you figure that calc?

Also, a question for everybody: of all the chess players you know, who would you say has the highest strength/vanity ratio?

You're welcome. By the way, what do you mean by "vanity ratio?" Do you mean who is the strongest vain player in chess, or who is vain yet a bad chess player by rating?

Mastery of any skill can be focused on for its own sake, like Zen masters, or auto mechanics, athletes, or surgeons, who get so focused on what they are doing that they forget themselves.  In fact, I think self-absorption would interefere with one's mastery of a particular skill because it distracts your mind from the thing you are trying to master. I think satisfaction can be derived without vanity. 

Lol to this mental diarrhea.  There is an answer to the question, and it can be said in few words.  This is an internet forum,  not state mandated rehab for fk sake.  Start over please.

😀

I don't know why I am doing this

Hello