Huge motivation problem

Last night, I lost my Black Bishop on a2 because it got trapped by b3, and for some reason, it made me especially livid.

I think I was still kinda smad and recovering from the Blue Monday (which I literally found out was a thing two days ago), but then I realised that it's my anger that had been motivating me during the past 10 or so years of playing chess.

These days I don't really get shaken by my mistakes, so I forget that I made them and thus repeat them; however, yesterday I remembered that my fury was what fueled the fire of my motivation to improve at chess. Themes can hardly be properly remembered if they don't leave you with a lasting emotional impression, and there's nothing as productive in that respect as pure, unadulterated anger.

Anyone else feel like this?

You haven't played a game here in more than three years.

Why tell us?

Ah, the somewhat common assumption... sorry for not making it clear from the outset.

I've actually been playing on Lichess for the past few years, and on ChessCube before that.

Hey, thanks for the express pep talk!

Well, you might post the actual game/position so that we can sympathize or tell you what a bonehead you were.

Good choices, they are much superior sites to this dump

you need matt foley!

...mostly because it's very clear to me what the mistakes in it were, and this ain't Game Analysis, either.

I am, however, up for a discussion about the psychological moment of the blunder. Why did I decide to get greedy and forget a tactic I successfully avoided in another recent game? Beats me, just like my opponent did.

You get another pair of bishops at the start of your next game so no need to worry about mislaying one in a game!

You are in good company. Fischer lost game 1 of the 1972 world championship match with Spassky after an ill advised Bxh2 was met by g3 trapping the bishop. 

I will motivate you...

I read yesterday that the bite of a grizzly bear can crush a bowling ball... 

More Motivation...

Speaking of things that don't motivate me: blunders. You never know when the next one's gonna happen and why. They're just dumb oversights, for the most part. Just fell for a simple royal fork two minutes ago.

I still haven't changed my mind about chess being too punishing. I suppose there is a balance in the fact that anyone can blunder (and everyone who ever played chess already must've at some point, barring engines), but it's not balanced if your opponents make less blunders than you per game. xD

In a fighting game, unless it has combos that are virtually infinitely long, you get hit, but then you get to make at least two or three additional guesses, on average. Blundering is almost like handing your opponent a 1-hit K.O. Now, if I were Larry Christiansen, I'd probably be able to bluff my opponent out by playing really quickly, so the queen blunder wouldn't matter as much; but I'm almost always the slower player of the two in any of my games. That sucks.

....ur taking it way-WAY too seriously. and its not becoming.

wait a sec....ur trolling is  .

@Thee_Ghostess_Lola: Both interpretations might be equally viable in this case. xD We all learn stuff so it would work not only once, but always; yet, we also forget pretty much anything that isn't a multiplication table, it seems. It's kinda eerie that one can look at a chess position three times, not understand it the first time, then learn it and thus understand it the second time, then FORGET it the third time. Why the patterns of our minds' eyes are so fragile, I do not know, but I personally think I'm at a disadvantage compared to some.

There are people I know who are remarkable visual talents and who can solve geometry problems better than I'll ever be able to (and those people include my own mother, regrettably, as some of that inner sight got lost on me), while I have to struggle and draw additional lines then redraw them over and over until I reach some conclusion. I feel that chess is very similar to that, except I don't get to draw any lines; instead, I must internalise them all and then prove that I can do it more efficiently than somebody else, which is a tough order if you're a logician with no real visual inclinations.