It's Better Not to be a GM!

Maybe because he's not a spawn of Einstein like you.

Username Blocked 

I don't permit rude comments directed at me in my topics, and this is something I have done only once before, and then unblocked the user once we came to an understanding.

The game I posted was a Live Chess game played at 15 10, on January 18, 2012. It can be found here - http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=236712544

Username Blocked for rude personal attacks.  

Did this post advance the discussion? Was it constructive and helpful? I don't think so.

Many of the posts in this topic of mine have been outstanding, and again, have furthered my understanding and appreciation of the game.

A big +1 and shout out really needs to go out to -

LisaV – Highly Inspirational!

PaulGottlieb – Most Instructive!

Elubas, Waffllemaster, Damongross, ArnesonStidgeley, and others who have advanced the discussion. Thank you!

---

Back to my tactics puzzles, so I can one day better appreciate the games of chess masters.

HAHA! Trolls got blocked!

I agree that it's better not to be a GM, but not for the reasons you say.

• Even if you are consumed with the idea of winning a pawn, that doesn't mean that it is not interesting.
• Everybody wants to get better, it's just human nature. But - if you think about it - the better you get, the fewer people are out there to play good games against. I have this at my level, of course, but if I were a GM, I wouldn't (presumably) enjoy playing against NMs, and even FMs would be like me playing currently against strong B or A players now. So you're left with this ever-shrinking pool of players to play against, the better you get.

And it makes it nearly impossible to go into a coffee shop, see a couple of people playing, and say "hey can I play the winner".

The thing is, it's the same with every activity. You can get really good at backgammon, Scrabble, pool, bowling, foosball. Maybe the one thing you'd still be happy playing even if the opponent were terrible would be...

Poker.

I agree with mrguy888 that the game gets richer the more you know.  Also, the chicks get hotter the higher your rating goes!

I love going to coffee shops and conquering the posers.

Well, once you're a GM, instead of asking for a game, you just mentor everybody

Of course, they can simply play other grandmasters in tournaments, or challenge the computer. Even I play computers -- they keep you alert.

Sometimes.. inadvertantly.. I play against a computer.. um yeah.

Those people are doing you a big favor

I suppose that ignorance is bliss. But I feel you comment relating chess to a pond and music to all the oceans combined is a bit shortsighted. There is great depth to chess which I feel you underestimate. 

Speaking of the OP's back pain, my knee's going to hell in a hand basket too. Anyway, I've been in a lot of coffee shops but I've never seen a chess game being played in my life.

That's weird. The shops around here have sets under the counter. Some have regular chess hanger-outers.

apparently you don't pull the hot ones until you are over 50 years of age

 They must hide em when I come in.

I clearly see both sides of the debate in my angst over this game. I have gotten in arguments with my wife because, I get so wrapped up in it. I don't like the anxiety I feel over the fear of losing or making a bad move.

Adversely, I love this game and I want to be great at it. It is a liberating feeling, when you can play Bogoljubov to a 45 move positional stalemate and be grossly ahead on time. I despise the idea I can't do it and have fun anymore. However, my mind is wired for this. I would be in more agony to whistfully go through the motions of this game and try to call it fun, if I didn't try as hard as I could. If in the end, I feel like this game has become like tic-tac-toe, I can live with that, most especially because, it has so much more potential to be far different. In reality all games have this sort of adversity built in. Yet we play. I can't imagine life without something to toil with.

Or backgammon, golf, pool, bowling, watching sports on tv.  I'm sure there's more, you can gamble on just about anything. 

I typically find the lack of a good opponent, boring and a waste of my time. I am not so greedy to take someone's money if they are really that unintelligent. I'll cut em' some slack, they might be so stupid as to use their bill money even. I suck at golf, I don't even need an opponent. What I was trying to say is that games have an inherent adversity that you both loathe and love. If there was no challenge, games would be boring and no fun. You wouldn't play them if you couldn't feel triumphant or smarter.

Have to disagree with the sentiment. For me, chess gets deeper, richer and more enjoyable the more I learn about it, and that is why I spend a lot of time trying to get better - I mean, I'm never going to be world champion or get rich, but if I enjoy it this much at 1900, I can only imagine the pleasure I'd get from the game if I was a master.

I spent a year rated over 2000 on this site, and I started to find chess being too much work, especially while I was over 2100. Fortunately against the higher-rated players I started to lose despite my best efforts and found myself back under 2000, where chess became fun again. Now I have laboriously climbed back to 2000. Will the fun subside? We will see. The fun zone for me seems to be 1800 to 2000. It's a very individual thing.