I love the Japanese proverb!
But, yes, you battle for the centre don't you? As you battle for space, material etc. Generally it's advantageous to grab more than your fair share of the centre, like occupying the high ground in some king-of-the-hill game.
I havent had a pawn centre in years
You just finish up defending the damn thing, sniping from the flanks is my game as Black, Rock solid as white.
lol That's interesting. I guess climbing the ladder doesn't necessarily bring any more pure enjoyment to the game. If anything possibly the opposite. I think I was enjoying chess most a few years ago playing what I thought was my wonderful trademark 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5? opening. I sure felt like Bobby Fischer overwhelming some opponents by going on lone Queen rampages. Now everything has to be tainted with a dose of "reality" of what is actually good and bad.
And of course that famous quote comes to mind: "The more you learn, the more you realize you have to learn".
Chess is a rabbit hole, but the question is not how deep does it go. That's for the computers to answer. It's how deep do you want to go? And how big are the rabbits in there? 
There's a thread on here somewhere you've probably seen about all the great players who went off their heads, Chess broke their minds as far as I'm concerned.
Kasparov is right on the money when he described it as "Mental torture."
How do you feel when someone plays Qh5 against you now? I see those guys coming with that or Qf3 and it's not that I switch off but I tend to assume the quality of the player based on that, only 3 moves in. It's kind of arrogant and a flagrant abuse of the first law of survival in underestimating my opponent. I'm aware of this but I still find myself doing it and then every now and then having to question myself about it, usually after I blunder something mid game and end up losing. I suspect this is the path to Chess madness.
I'm going to have to disagree. I think as you climb the ladder you appreciate complex tactics, prophylaxis, and the deep battle of ideas that is often lacking at the lower level. It's what has been happening to me lately. Some people may find it more tedious, but for me more interesting. You can of course overdo it by climbing up with the only motivation to make a living or whatever.
Oh, I by no means find any of it at all tedious. I definitely get a deep satisfaction by working hard to gain a better and better knowledge of stuff like that and apply it in my games. I was talking more about my beginner's innocent feelings of wonder and pure, uninhibited joy, where I could just move however I felt like without fear of making mistakes or losing, if that makes any sense...
Chess is a rabbit hole, but the question is not how deep does it go. That's for the computers to answer. It's how deep do you want to go? And how big are the rabbits in there?
There's a thread on here somewhere you've probably seen about all the great players who went off their heads, Chess broke their minds as far as I'm concerned.
Kasparov is right on the money when he described it as "Mental torture."
How do you feel when someone plays Qh5 against you now? I see those guys coming with that or Qf3 and it's not that I switch off but I tend to assume the quality of the player based on that, only 3 moves in. It's kind of arrogant and a flagrant abuse of the first law of survival in underestimating my opponent. I'm aware of this but I still find myself doing it and then every now and then having to question myself about it, usually after I blunder something mid game and end up losing. I suspect this is the path to Chess madness.
Great metaphor. In that case unless my opponent is Nakamura it's pretty safe to assume they aren't that experienced.
lol That's interesting. I guess climbing the ladder doesn't necessarily bring any more pure enjoyment to the game. If anything possibly the opposite. I think I was enjoying chess most a few years ago playing what I thought was my wonderful trademark 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5? opening. I sure felt like Bobby Fischer overwhelming some opponents by going on lone Queen rampages. Now everything has to be tainted with a dose of "reality" of what is actually good and bad.
And of course that famous quote comes to mind: "The more you learn, the more you realize you have to learn".
I'm going to have to disagree. I think as you climb the ladder you appreciate complex tactics, prophylaxis, and the deep battle of ideas that is often lacking at the lower level. It's what has been happening to me lately. Some people may find it more tedious, but for me more interesting. You can of course overdo it by climbing up with the only motivation to make a living or whatever.
I agree with Elubas, I enjoy chess more the more I understand it.
I agree with Elubas, I enjoy chess more the more I understand it.
Maybe the word "enjoy" was too broad a one for me to use. Chess for me is like life: as we get a little older and wiser we appreciate a lot more in deeper ways, however still lose a certain amount of that child-like thrill/excitement/wonder, whatever you want to call it...
EDIT: How's the forum break going? 
EDIT: How's the forum break going?
I'm just having a break from it. 
Hypermodern VS Classical
Should we occupy the center?
Or should we influence it with flanks and gambits?
Both are said to be correct.
But keep in mind that 1 + 1 = 2 in the universe that we know, but if it was a four dimensional universe, would 1 = 1?
From a beginner in this subject, I think it is important to point out the means of controlling the center. Pawns are put at risk first with the possibility of opening up the center. We can often benefit from sacrificing the pawn to open up the center especially if a rook is waiting behind it to capture the opponent's queen. Knights are sometimes the means to open up the center, and can be used for double attacks especially when they are removing center pawns which protect the opponent's king or queen. So the center pawns are often the barrier protecting the opponent's pieces. Whomever controls the timing of opening the center can control who wins the game. We would not volunteer our queen to jump into the battle for the center, because there it is more vulnerable. Whichever side is on the run is likely to lose the game. So putting powerful pieces in the center is one way to stay on the run for a while, especially counter-productive if you only capture a pawn. So the opening of the center is a means for attack. Keeping the center closed is a means for defense. And controlling the center is the means of controlling both of these especially as they relate to timing. For example, the open center helps for bishop threats. The exact position we seek can depend on where we find safety and threats to our advantage. Fighting for the center is like an introduction to these concepts, just the first steps in a long journey.
lol That's interesting. I guess climbing the ladder doesn't necessarily bring any more pure enjoyment to the game. If anything possibly the opposite. I think I was enjoying chess most a few years ago playing what I thought was my wonderful trademark 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5? opening. I sure felt like Bobby Fischer overwhelming some opponents by going on lone Queen rampages. Now everything has to be tainted with a dose of "reality" of what is actually good and bad.
And of course that famous quote comes to mind: "The more you learn, the more you realize you have to learn".
I'm going to have to disagree. I think as you climb the ladder you appreciate complex tactics, prophylaxis, and the deep battle of ideas that is often lacking at the lower level. It's what has been happening to me lately. Some people may find it more tedious, but for me more interesting. You can of course overdo it by climbing up with the only motivation to make a living or whatever.