Chess Questions for an Ethnography

Hey guys! I'm writing an ethnography for my English class and I was wondering if I could get some people to share their "chess experiences" with me so that I could get a better grasp of how the community is. I'll leave a few questions if you'd like to answer those. I really appreciate it!

Questions: 

How did you get into chess? I learned the rules of chess in elementary school (maybe age 7 or 8) by a friend who wanted to play chess with me. They taught me how the pieces moved, basic rules, and then we played a game. I almost never played though; chess was literally just another board game to me like Monopoly or Risk. I had no idea chess tournaments or "grandmasters" existed at the time. I didn't really decide to "take up" chess until after high school. Before then I'd play maybe a game or two per year if that.
How does being in a club affect how you play/view/interact with the game?

I "took up chess" the exact day I created my chess.com account, so a bit over 3 years by now. I've been a USCF member for a little over one year and joined my local chess club maybe a few months before that, so been a chess club member about a year and a half. I found a chess club because I wanted to find other people to play in person so I could learn from them and get better; most people near me do not play chess. I don't know how much it really impacts me outside of the chess club though. We typically meet once a week, so outside of the club - it doesn't really impact me much. 
Do you enjoy it, or is it more of a job? Purely a hobby that I enjoy; well sometimes has ups and downs lol but mostly enjoy. I have zero interest in making chess a career, but I guess I'd consider getting a chess title if I got that good one day. Just taking things one step at a time I guess
What do you enjoy about it? It is a good hobby; it gives you something to look forward to and also keeps you thinking so it is good for the mind (lots of psychology and medical studies confirm the positive benefits of playing chess at any level). Chess isn't for everyone though - it is just like any other hobby; some will enjoy it and others will politely pass and that is okay; everyone is different.
When did you start playing? Same day I created my chess.com account, so about 3 and a half years by now. I learned the rules years before (as mentioned) but don't count that because I almost never played.
How do you think chess affects your interactions with people outside of chess, if there is any correlation? Most likely no correlation unless it is a topic of conversation or they somehow have an interest in chess as well. Take any other hobby for example: say I like baseball. This is like asking a baseball player who plays on a team at the park, "how does baseball impact your interactions with people outside of baseball?" The answer is "not much" xD
Does partaking in chess affect you outside of playing and studying chess in any way? Like, outside of playing chess, does it affect you? I don't think so. It might for similar strategy games or skills though. Chess itself is not really something that is inherently meaningful elsewhere, but many traits you hone might be. Chess might teach "strategic planning", "patience", "determination" and things like this that would be useful in other ways outside of chess, but this is probably the extent it goes to I'd say.
What merits do you think a person needs to become good at chess? Depends what level of chess. Like anything else, it can become extremely competitive near the top and certain traits then might become a must. However, even to break the 90 percentile - I think it is manageable for anyone granted they are willing to put in the time and effort to learn. Since chess learning is so time-consuming (usually takes many years to get decent at it), probably "determination" or "patience" etc. are a must to some degree, but other than that - it is just you get out what you put in. Against popular belief, chess is not about intelligence, sheer memory, or being a cunning mastermind. Some of these traits might help some, but isn't required at all. Chess is mostly pattern recognition and practice - IQ has no convincing correlation at all and is a myth only advertised by people who probably are not that good at chess or simply ego-driven. 
Have you ever felt like quitting chess? You mean other than after every game I lose or realize I blundered?  Joking aside, I never seriously considered quitting chess - but then again, I consider it only a hobby for me. Perhaps players taking it far more seriously (like a career choice in some way) might consider quitting. There is certainly a lot of pressure, stress, travel and other things that might draw someone away from being a world class chess grandmaster; I could see how some at that level might consider quitting, but probably not an issue for most "club level" players.
What makes you want to continue playing? Everyone is different, but probably how much I learn from chess. Chess is one of those things where the more you learn, then the more you realize you don't know. Even chess grandmasters are constantly learning chess just like we all are - chess is such a complex game in many ways so there always seems to be more to learn. The Shannon Number in chess (named after mathematician Claude Shannon who calculated this) is 10 to the 43rd power or "1" with 43 zeroes after it! This number is the calculated number of legal chess positions which exist and naturally games and move orders would increase this number massively! Just the sheer scale of chess alone is a task is itself. Luckily for us, we don't learn chess by brute memory - but by patterns and recognizing positions and tactics etc.
Are you happy with your rating right now? Define "happy" xD I don't think any fairly serious chess player is ever complacent with their rating; in large part because of what I mentioned before about you realizing how much you didn't know once you learn more; people feel like they have potential to improve (and probably do!) so that is why most are never happy with their rating. However, if you define "happy" more like "satisfied with the progress you've made and how much chess you have learned" then I've always been "happy" with my rating

At the time of writing this, I recently lost about 100 rating points on chess.com rapid lol - but still okay with this to a degree (dropped from circa 1920s to 1820s). Chess rating fluctuates a ton just because of the nature of the rating system and mathematical variance. I think most chess players are somewhat "happy" with their progress and rating once they realize how much rating fluctuates naturally and how little the number actually means from a day-to-day basis; it means much more for long-term than how you did this week. If you are going up after several months then you are on the right track
What would be an ideal rating for you to achieve (if you’re not happy with where you’re at) Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and most players will name a rating a few hundred points higher than they view themselves now. Ask this to an 1800 player and they will probably say 2000 would be ideal for them. Ask an 800 player and 1000 is probably what they would say would be ideal for them. xD

Chess is much more than just rating numbers though

I have never partaken in the enjoyment of chess, this is purely to put on my resume for future careers. If I wanted to have fun I would be playing Among Us. My goal is to reach a 3600 bullet/blitz rating by the end of the year. Goodbye and please do not contact me any further due to the fact that I have many important things to do instead of typing for this "ethnography" on "chess". Get real.

3600 is not practical at all if you knew how the math in the rating system works - World Chess Champion GM Magnus Carlsen has been consistently learning and has remained over 2800 FIDE for an entire decade - even the computer Stockfish is not 3600 level. You won't reach this rating and certainly not by the end of the year. If you had better things to do, then why waste your time to post a troll post in this thread? You need every available second to be studying chess and playing chess games if you want to boost your rating to even half of 3600 by the end of the year. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if this account lasts a year without being closed for Fair Play violations. 

If you were genuinely serious about your chess goals and post, then I apologize; however, 3600 is ridiculous and the manner posted seems like a troll post for sure, so one can understand my skepticism. If you were genuinely believing 3600 was manageable by the end of the year, then I suggest you research how the rating systems function. 

No idea why the op would even friend someone who literally calls their topic on chess a joke with "Get Real" but clearly they are less selective with friend requests than I am

Hey guys! I'm writing an ethnography for my English class and I was wondering if I could get some people to share their "chess experiences" with me so that I could get a better grasp of how the community is. I'll leave a few questions if you'd like to answer those. I really appreciate it!

Questions: 

How did you get into chess?
How does being in a club affect how you play/view/interact with the game?
Do you enjoy it, or is it more of a job?
What do you enjoy about it?
When did you start playing?
How do you think chess affects your interactions with people outside of chess, if there is any correlation?
Does partaking in chess affect you outside of playing and studying chess in any way? Like, outside of playing chess, does it affect you?
What merits do you think a person needs to become good at chess?
Have you ever felt like quitting chess?
What makes you want to continue playing?
Are you happy with your rating right now? 
What would be an ideal rating for you to achieve (if you’re not happy with where you’re at)

3600 is not practical at all if you knew how the math in the rating system works - World Chess Champion GM Magnus Carlsen has been consistently learning and has remained over 2800 FIDE for an entire decade - even the computer Stockfish is not 3600 level. You won't reach this rating and certainly not by the end of the year. If you had better things to do, then why waste your time to post a troll post in this thread? You need every available second to be studying chess and playing chess games if you want to boost your rating to even half of 3600 by the end of the year. In fact, I'd be somewhat surprised if this account lasts a year without being closed for Fair Play violations. 

If you were genuinely serious about your chess goals and post, then I apologize; however, 3600 is ridiculous and the manner posted seems like a troll post for sure, so one can understand my skepticism. If you were genuinely believing 3600 was manageable by the end of the year, then I suggest you research how the rating systems function. 

No idea why the op would even friend someone who literally calls their topic on chess a joke with "Get Real" but clearly they are less selective with friend requests than I am

bruh im an irl friend

Dude, how does interviewing random people online help with an ethnography? We could be lying about every word we say, and you'll just take our word for it? I seriously don't recommend using any information from us.

I'm quarantined at home. I can't personally interview anyone, and I don't personally know anyone in a chess club near me, which is why I posted here. The point of the ethnography is to learn something about a group of people that you didn't know before. 

LOL plot twist

dun dun dun...

To be fair, read the original post and then the response by this real life friend...(bolded above) it doesn't sound like a good friend irl or online - at least by that single post within the context of this thread. Perhaps you both get along in many other ways or share things in common, or even joke with each other often. However, this didn't come across as a nice or productive response to someone reading this thread as a genuine attempt at something like a research paper.

Its a lost position

I can see where you're coming from in the sense that you don't like that I responded in a manner that didn't bring something to the table, but I see it as somewhat illogical to look at my single comment that was made in good jest and assume that I'm not a good friend online nor offline. Would it also be fair to assume that the two commenters before me (which are irl friends as well) are bad friends? Their comments were nonsensical and brought nothing of value as well. Every friend group has its own unique sense of humor which makes it special. You make not like nor agree with someone's sense of humor but that doesn't mean that you can label them as a bad friend.  I never at any point tried to insult you nor in any way impede what you had to say to the original poster. I can accept that you perceived my comment as nonsatirical (though it clearly is satirical considering the context clues of prior comments made) and conclude it as a simple misunderstanding, but I think it is rather petty that you misinterpreting my message concludes me as a bad person.

this guy is literally insane. he sent me a friend request and is now talking as if we have been friends for years. He is scaring me with personal remarks as if he knows me, and now this. Please do not encourage this person, he is dangerous