Chess Player's Mentality

 i think chess helps us to be more careful. otherway around the way we play chess tells more about our psychology(?)

Thats what I think. But its both ways, we play the way our psychology is and vice versa. Thanks for your comment.

I was more interested in knowing how it effcts our daily lives though.

I think making a move on a girl thing has nothing to do with chess. Capablanca was a party-goer and he was often seen going out with many different girls. In fact, he lived a life of a celebrity. He dined with royalty, partied with the rich, and was often followed by the press. He was a charming and bright individual who was very eloquent with words.

Scientifically speaking, introvert individuals tend to be attracted to games such as chess, whereas the extroverts tend to be interested in outdoor sports. So it is expected to have more introverts in the chess world than the extroverts. However, this is not to say that all chess players are all shy individuals.

Hard to tell if the personality attracts me to chess, or if chess has affected my personality over time.

One thing I have noticed though is chess has made me more deliberate in certain decision making situations.  I tend to be afraid of a quick decision or calculation for fear of getting something wrong... even when I can tell I could probably be doing things faster I'm more comfortable taking a slow and organized approach.

I suspect my personality attracts me to chess. I used to be very much the perfectionist, always believing that there was a best course of action, and one that rational thought could determine. And if there wasn't one in "real life" then I was drawn to domains where there was such a paradigm: engineering, mathematics, science, chess.  Aspects of this fool remain today :-)

But as for the question, "what has chess given back to the rest of my personality?" I'd have to say, after a year and a bit of playing, very little. I don't say this in a negative way. I honestly don't feel any less rushed, or more analystical, or more structured, or what have you, as a result of the hours of analysis and studying. In fact, I recently read Kasparov's book on how life imitates chess. And the thought that crossed my mind, was that if I had spent my life raising hamsters professionally, I would simply see life through the metaphor of hamster farming. The book for me wasn't a compelling argument that chess added valuable skills to life. Rather, it was a compelling argument that Garry Kasparov sees life through the lens of chess. You could do the same, with, for example, the art of motorcycle maintenance, or archery.

But on a lighter note, and perhaps slightly contradicting my last statement, I admit to this story. I was so incredibly frustrated one night in my early learning months, as I lost yet another game to the dumbest level computer in Chessmaster, that I slammed my fists onto the desk in anger. This broke my watch and I had to get it repaired! I realized at that point that my view on what was really important in life was getting way too far out of whack! That was something I recall clearly.  Since then I've had my butt handed to me on a plate many, many times in a chess game and I have not felt or reacted with such strong negative feeling. So perhaps the experience has led me to be a little calmer and a little more balanced. But this has nothing to do with the game itself; I suspect I could have had the same moment over a checkers game, or even after a hard loss on one of those internet turn-based rock-paper-scissors places.

You are so right !!

I intiated this thread to come across if anyone else feels same way as I do or it's just me. And after reading to your comment, I realized that chess is just an excuse to trigger those moments, for my nature of people who want to see themselves as winners but lose! In general life , I wanted to check if I follow the same pattern or is it different. Well in this world full of multiple natured people randomly scattered all around us, things kind of balance out. But in a game of chess , when there is a battle bwteen two minds, there are no excuses of ignorance, or chances of fault or mistakes. Consequently errors lead to a loss, which inturn raises the level of incompetence and discomfort. I still just keep playing just to have fun , after many times of surrender.

When I lose a game I feel terrible. Angry, hurt, upset and not just happy with myself!

lets try to adopt a lighter side of it, after all, we dont lose any money or material or suffer any real loss of a horse or elephant or queen or battle :) its all just imaginery :) and a game!

The other day, I was shocked to read that the greatest chess player Bobby Fisher when died, had only 8 people in his funeral !

A related question might be, how does playing chess change a person's mentality over time?  For me, one of the lessons I've taken from chess concerns how I react to losing (which is, after all, one of life's inevitabilities).  Over time, I've learned to become less emotionally invested in whether I win or lose -- in chess, or in life more generally.  That's because chess has helped me realize that some days I'll win, and some days I'll lose, and some days I'll draw -- and that it's all a necessary part of life's larger totality.  Yeah, it still feels more immediately gratifying to win, but I've found that losing well -- with grace & equanimity -- is also a great and subtle art.  

I’ve  found this statement interesting, but I thought it deserved some observations.  I wonder how far chess playing would be evidence that one differs from the norm, or if it would rather be indicative of the kind frame of mind and character one possesses, which will favor certain kind of activities. I don`t think that “not caring to fit in” comes into play, at least in a decisive way.

Take Shogi as an example. It presents every “favorable points” chess players can identify in their own  game of choice, sometimes taken to a higher degree, and its rules avoid a lot of what chess players consider undesirable in chess.

For instance, most chess players like to solve a great variety of mate problems, which happen much more frequently in games of Shogi than in chess (in fact, solving mate tends to be the essence of most Shogi endgames);  draws rarely happen in Shogi;  material advantage is not as decisive, most game situation can be reversed if the wining player isn`t competent enough to deliver mate, so that there are less resignations and games must be played until mate; a single error is less frequently decisive as it is in chess… Shogi is more about the sum of your errors and opponent good moves, so that it is not as frequently decided by a single blunder. This, and the fact that attacking patterns involve a greater number of moves, makes fast time control games richer (in terms of delivered plans and patterns) than in chess, even if not as rich as long time controls; opening theory is important, but far away from the importance it takes in chess;  the game has a much more warlike feel to it (this tends to please chess players that like to make the “war analogy”): you have to break through opponent lines, then chase the king from it castle - from which you have multiple types in Shogi - , and finally, mate the opponent king, while taking care of your own king. Sometimes, there is a race for checkmate, with both sides at risk (that can be trilling).

All chess players I know which tried Shogi, loved it. Most even gave up on chess to stick with Shogi.  Yet, even after years trying to establish Shogi in the western world, we see that most new players will choose chess, even knowing about the existence of Shogi.

 I`m not trying to open a dispute as to which game one should play and I find natural that chess players, which are used to the game, will resist trying another time consuming and addicting game once they are satisfied with what they have. But new players, which blame opening theory, draws, material advantage based premature wins etc, will still choose to try chess rather than Shogi, because of the simple fact that chess is the dominant game of the kind in western world. It`s a more universal reference in the society around us, so that, even if being part of a minority (who isn`t, after all?), one will share his experiences with a bigger group, i.e., will be fitting in.

The single obstacle to Shogi becoming dominant is its own absence in western culture. Taking as player references people of a strange and more closed culture, with strange habits, seems a lot less natural than quoting Kasparov, Fisher, Tal, which, even if foreigners to most players, share most of our western values and customs. In fact, this is nothing more than the need to fit in. To fit in the way one can, but, nevertheless, to fit in.

What about the chess players who gave up chess for Shogi ? Well, they had to be convinced of trying it and be exposed long enough to be hooked. Once you’re hooked, there’s no way back, as chess players know. But most won’t even try.

Shogi is growing in western world, but it’s a slow evolution.  Slowly it will fit in our cultural framework and, suddenly, it will gain momentum, since people won’t feel detached from their own environment when taking the Shogi direction, rather than chess. It think chess will still be dominant in the west, but to a lesser degree.  Unless we will all be immersed in our future virtual reality games intoxication.

Notice that this post isn’t about creating a dispute between both games. I just took similar games, which are dominant inside their own cultural domain, in order to make my point.

Yet, I need to give credit to your point of view, since I think that, in a relative way, you are, in part, right.

Western chess seems to be growing faster in the eastern world than shogi is in the Western World.

For sure. Outside Japan, almost every thing related with western culture will be growing faster than something related with their neighbours culture.

Most people with internet access in eastern countries will speak english and be more exposed to chess and other aspects of western culture than to Shogi and aspects of japanese culture. But, that's not the point. We must consider places where both games are already established. For instance, in Germany, and other European countries, Shogi seems to have been growing. Most probably it's been having a faster rate of growth than chess. 

Most shogi/chess players I have know or from which I have heard an opinion, prefer Shogi. But exposure to chess all around the world is still much greater. Some years ago, one would have to buy one of a half a dozen existent books written in english in order to learn some basics of Shogi. Today, one needs nothing more, in order to learn to play the game, than Hidetchi's youtube videos, which provide a guide through basic rules, exercises, openings, tactics... all aspects of the game. Yet, the intensity one is exposed to chess and chess related references is infinitely greater.

I taught me how bad I was at chess

Like your comment !