Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Fun in chess comes from winning. And, winning only comes from study and practice.
Want to be a happy chess player? Develop superior skills. Then you'll win. Then you'l be happy. Very simple. But it requires a lot of study and practice.
Absolutely the correct answer, it's fun to put a lot of effort in and get a win at the end of it. The same holds true in life..
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter...
Not true. I just don't play internet "chess"...especially "turn-based" where you use a database to get fictitiously high ratings. So, back at you:
Your opponent is also using a database, making your rating fictitiously low.
It's a trick question. Chess is not a fun game. It's a kind of masochistic torture where you sit in a chair and agonize over meaningless little blobs on a tiny board.
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter...
Not true. I just don't play internet "chess"...especially "turn-based" where you use a database to get fictitiously high ratings. So, back at you:
Your opponent is also using a database, making your rating fictitiously low.
Maybe in your situation, but not in mine. I refuse to play "baloney" chess.
Reb even stopped playing such. Took him long enough. 
first option
It's a trick question. Chess is not a fun game. It's a kind of masochistic torture where you sit in a chair and agonize over meaningless little blobs on a tiny board.
Neither. I would study and practice to become proficient.
Non-commital fence-sitter...
Not true. I just don't play internet "chess"...especially "turn-based" where you use a database to get fictitiously high ratings. So, back at you:
Your opponent is also using a database, making your rating fictitiously low.
Maybe in your situation, but not in mine. I refuse to play "baloney" chess.
Reb even stopped playing such. Took him long enough.
This doesnt make any sense. You have no control over your opponents use of a database, and most of them will do so.
So your rating is artifially low, not artificially high.
In other words, you have it backwards.
This doesnt make any sense. You have no control over your opponents use of a database, and most of them will do so.
Yes. That's why it sucks.
Turn-based chess:
Is that Haywood on the left?
This doesnt make any sense. You have no control over your opponents use of a database, and most of them will do so.
Yes. That's why it sucks.
Well, if your rating is all you care about, I can see how that would be the case.
For me, I use turn based as practice for OTB, so I dont care at all what my opponent is doing. Openings in a turn based game is study time for my openings in OTB.
2. Not having much fun at all while playing, but eventually you'd sqeeze out a cheap win...
Well, if your rating is all you care about, I can see how that would be the case.
Just the opposite. If I wanted inflated ratings, then TB would be the ticket.
Study, research, computer play is one thing. Playing with the use of a computer is another. It's a crutch. I won't do it. It bastardizes chess.
Well, if your rating is all you care about, I can see how that would be the case.
Just the opposite. If I wanted inflated ratings, then TB would be the ticket.
Study, research, computer play is one thing. Playing with the use of a computer is another. It's a crutch. I won't do it. It bastardizes chess.
Well you keep going back and forth...if your opponents are using databases then I am not sure how you arrive at the idea your rating would be inflated, especially if you refuse to use them yourself. Your rating would be deflated, not inflated.
Your rating would only be inflated if you used them and your opponents did not.
i go with number 2......
turn-based chess player:
Number 2. :]
Option #2