Higher rating = more, or less fun ?

Well, here it is : I've been wondering if going up in rating i.e. learning openings and playing them over and over again; learning and playing GMs games, openings, systems and strategies by heart is more, or less fun in the end.  It feels like there is less room for improvisation, creativity, originality... fun.  It actually feels like I'm playing someone else's game over and over again...  is it really worth going up in rating ?  or is it more fun of a game if you stay at a lower rating (play your own game) and not play(copy) other people's systems and games.  And if so, does it not defeat one of the objectives of playing this game -- getting better and winning more games ?  I don't know, I'm kinda tired of running lines (ratraces) that other pple have set in real life, I'm not sure if I want to do the same thing with chess...

What do you think ?

I play for the challenge, that involves getting better.  If you play with the intent to keep your sanity you may wish to avoid extensive study :).

My personal opinion is that it becomes more fun because it's like anything else, the more you know about the subject the more you begin to appreciate the sublties that exist only in the eyes of the very few.  Picture it this way, you are an NFL coach. While other men just sit on the couch screaming "why in the world did he do that?!" or "He's an idiot for making that call because the defense already in a ____ formation, man I could coach better than he could!"  Once you get there, by coaching in high school, moving up to coaching a college team, to finally getting a deal with that NFL team, you begin to see what the NFL coaches see, not what some drunk on a couch sees.  The logic and reasoning you use to call each and every play allows to you appreciate all those football games you watched as a kid growing up and as an adult just coaching a high school team. As for the creativity, it would not take long for even us couch sitters to realize all the changes that have become part of the sport as a result of coaches like Vince Lombardy, Tom Laundry, Joe Gibbs, etc.  Maybe it seems like chess becomes dull, but once you get there, you begin to realize all the changes that have been made to make chess what it is today compared to 100 years ago.  Yes, there are some limitations, but for the most part, when you become good enough to realize that these men and women at the top of the chess world have changed opening theory,fought tooth and nail time and time again to get and maintain their ratings, played brilliant and beautiful combinations, and continue to try to find new ideas, you will begin to understand your own creativity in a new light.  No longer will superfluous and losing moves be creative, but the new ideas will be accepted.

"If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same"

(http://www.swarthmore.edu/~apreset1/docs/if.html)

- then no need for further study.

I don't think it gets alot more fun. Of course, when you get higher, you win against stronger players which could satisfy your ego. But unless you're like Kasparov, you'll always run into even better players who beat you. You'll never be the best.

But I don't think it gets less fun either. The extra time you spend to studying openings and chess in general is compensated by the fact that you play better games. It's nice to play a sacrifice and win, which can be done at all levels of chess, but to actually know that the sacrifice is correct gives me more satisfaction than the sacrifice in itself. If you win with an incorrect sacrifice, it does give me some mixed feelings.

However I do think that when you get at such a level that you have to spend so much time to improve (like studying chess every day for a couple of hours) it gets less fun. But with enough talent and vision, you can get very high without getting to that point.

Phobetor:I don't care how I win.  If my move happens to be unsound and it causes a win I can't care in the least:I won, you lost, would you like to play again?  "but I should have won, it won't work again" don't care, I still beat you, I set out to win, I accomplished my goal.  "but it's not sound" really? you just had 2 hours to prove it and what happend?  AND ONCE AGAIN YOU LOST, so stop making excuses.

  Now will I use that move again?  I  would probably at least try it in speed games to see how well it does and if it holds up I may use it  in a serious game again.

less fun more of same exact openings and 1 little mistake you can lose

rousseausp wrote:

Well, here it is : I've been wondering if going up in rating i.e. learning openings and playing them over and over again; learning and playing GMs games, openings, systems and strategies by heart is more, or less fun in the end.  It feels like there is less room for improvisation, creativity, originality... fun.  It actually feels like I'm playing someone else's game over and over again...  is it really worth going up in rating ?  or is it more fun of a game if you stay at a lower rating (play your own game) and not play(copy) other people's systems and games.  And if so, does it not defeat one of the objectives of playing this game -- getting better and winning more games ?  I don't know, I'm kinda tired of running lines (ratraces) that other pple have set in real life, I'm not sure if I want to do the same thing with chess...

What do you think ?

 I have a lot more fun than than i did when i was a beginner. its satisfying for me playing stronger and stronger games, and watching the progression. i cant stand to play something if im bad at it. even if i win, i wont enjoy it if its only because of an obvious opponents blunder, or if ive played a false, unsound combination which luckily paid off. I prefer losing and playing well. + trust me that you will unlock wonderful beauty which you didn't appreciate before as you get better. Where did u hear that u have to copy other people's games to get better? It's simply not true.

alison27 wrote:

Phobetor:I don't care how I win.  If my move happens to be unsound and it causes a win I can't care in the least:I won, you lost, would you like to play again?  "but I should have won, it won't work again" don't care, I still beat you, I set out to win, I accomplished my goal.  "but it's not sound" really? you just had 2 hours to prove it and what happend?  AND ONCE AGAIN YOU LOST, so stop making excuses.

  Now will I use that move again?  I  would probably at least try it in speed games to see how well it does and if it holds up I may use it  in a serious game again.

 Fine, enjoy your unsound moves. no harm in that, just as long as you know you will never improve with that attitude.

I think more fun because I think I have more fun now then when I played like I was 1000 or less. The games are more interesting because I really understand the game now.

I find it more fun to play at a higher rating. My inner competitive self wants to win all the time.

However, I actually enjoy playing at a higher rating because I feel really good when I can play very strong moves and and more complicated tactics. You have to admit, it's a good feeling when you make a winning sacrifice and know it's sound.

rousseausp wrote:

Well, here it is : I've been wondering if going up in rating i.e. learning openings and playing them over and over again; learning and playing GMs games, openings, systems and strategies by heart is more, or less fun in the end.  It feels like there is less room for improvisation, creativity, originality... fun.

What do you think ?

1. Playing the same opening more than once is not the same as playing the same game over and over. Eventually you will reach a position nobody has ever reached before, and you'll have to think for yourself.

2. What's wrong with learning by watching the greats? If you wanted to be better at golf, wouldn't you want to see how Tiger Woods does it?

3. I generally have more fun playing games I'm good at. It's no fun to be clobbered over and over at a game I don't really know how to play.

It actually feels like I'm playing someone else's game over and over again...  is it really worth going up in rating ?  or is it more fun of a game if you stay at a lower rating (play your own game) and not play(copy) other people's systems and games.

It's not possible to "copy" someone else's game indefinitely. The odd time you'll have an opponent fall into a known trap (I've played out Morphy's side of the Opera House game more than once - at least, the first 8 or 9 moves, until my opponent overlooked a winning move from me). But most of the time, once you leave the opening you're thinking on your own.

Going up in rating is just a statistical representation of the fact that your skills have improved. i.e.: you are now a better player, since you can now defeat stronger opponents. If you're trying to get better, a rating increase helps you to see that you're making progress. That can be a fun and rewarding aspect of chess.

rousseausp> It feels like there is less room for improvisation, creativity, originality... fun.

I disagree. Top players come up with creative opening novelties all the time. Check out any issue of Informant or New In Chess Yearbook. Yelena Dembo's Very Unusual Book About Chess disccusses creativity in the middlegame at length... or check out super-GM Nakamura's games (is 2.Qh5 creative or foolish... maybe it depends who plays it!).

In writing there's a saying, "Know the rules so you can break the rules." Spelling rules may seem awfully restrictive at first, but once you master them they no longer restrict you. For example, the movie title "The Pursuit of Happyness" is misspelled for artistic reasons.

atomichicken:this time last year my rating was(way) less then 1000 now its 1507.

alison27 wrote:

atomichicken:this time last year my rating was(way) less then 1000 now its 1507.

 Ok, let me re-phrase it: At your level you will probably get away with a lot of unsound moves, but not when you start to play better players. Then you will have to care whether you are playing sound moves or not.

with deeper understanding comes deeper enjoyment.

I remember how it first felt in the beginning: you only saw very small areas on the board, and didn't understand even those that well. it was a jumble of pieces, and all of the moves felt equal. or to be more precise, the moves felt like nothing at all, they were just moves. and there were too many of them, literally dozens, and you tried them all rather blindly.

then you slowly started seeing the board better, missing less of those obvious tactical mistakes, but you still couldn't understand non-tactical aspects. you 'knew' that 'doubled pawns are bad', 'occupying open files and center is good', 'knights are better than bishops in a closed position' and whatnot, but you didn't understand any of those.

then you start developing a feel for pressure, tension and activity, as well as a primitive sense of danger as a result of countless losses. these things are more about feeling your way through the positions than analysis. get hit enough in the face, and you'll start moving away from the first sign of movement. a couple of hits more and you won't even let the other guy close enough to start raising his hand. and conversely, you see the other guy letting you too close, you'll land on him like a ton of bricks.

over time, you understand more and more, see shades you didn't see before, see emotions in the positions. like an agressive, passive, ferocious, prophylactic or patient move. or a phase in game. or a style of a player. you'll develop taste for these things, find beauty in games, like you might find in paintings or music. it's not all flashy tactics anymore, which was the only thing you could understand before. it's also the quiet, non-forcing moves, the efficient ones, the minimalistic ones etc. -you'll see more, feel more and enjoy more.

the downside is: the better you get, the more work improving requires. it's laborous, time consuming, painfull drudgery most of the time. as well as addictive. you get obsessed about it, use all of your waking hours thinking about it. and your nights too. -a friend of mine, with a background of heavy drug use, once said to me that his life was never as f***d up during the drug years than it was during the chess years. and I can easily see how that might be true.

me, I enjoy learning hard things. I wouldn't be into chess if it wasn't so ridiculously hard to get better at. I often train until I get physical pain, nausea or headache. I enjoy that.

so in the end, it comes down to what you like. pain, or no pain. hard labour or easy cruising. learning or entertaining. - it's been said that the best level to be at chess is the 1200 level. staying out of all the obsessive, bad, crazy things, and playing 'just for fun'. and I think it was some GM who said that.

i kind of look at chess as being similar to a sonnet. sure you are "forced" to repeat the same rhyming sequences (similar to being "forced" into the same openings for example). however, there is still so much room for creativity and expression (one can easily see different stylistic expressions between many differing GMs).

not to mention that i highly doubt that you have mastered (or even remotely played) a large majority of the possible openings and their possible variations (and even if you have, i highly doubt you are able to remember them all unless you are some kind of genius in which i completely understand how you can find chess not fun - if you are such a genius please stop reading now).

therefore, perhaps you should try learning a drastically different opening or variation that you've never tried. who knows? maybe you'll be revitalized by a completely new approach you never knew about, or perhaps even come up with a unique one of your own.

Its really a matter of perspective. I myself find enjoyment in the study of chess, whether it be openings, tactics, strategies, endgames, etc. I find that the study itself satisfies certain curiosities, and helps me to understand where my games are going, and even why I lose against stronger ( and yes, sometimes even weaker!) opponents than myself.

also, many chess books are quite entertaining in and of themselves. If you ever read "life and games of mikhail tal" I promise you will have fun just reading his anecdotes, not to mention being able to play through some of the most glorious sacrifices in chess.

It is fun to beat the people that used to beat the crap out of you, or even to surprise high ranked players with a pretty combo, or better, a forced draw ( or better, a surprise win) .

What isnt fun is to listen to people who criticize you for studying to begin with. I can do without those people.

wormstar wrote:

with deeper understanding comes deeper enjoyment.

Totally agreed with that!

godlesssaint> also, many chess books are quite entertaining in and of themselves.

That's part of it, too! The better I understand chess, the more classic chess books and master games make sense to me.  :)