One reason why chess can be annoying …

In most sports or games a player will improve simply by playing. You won’t master anything, but you can get to a respectable level in most things without tons of studying and practice. I don’t want to study, I just want to play the game. I would venture to say that had I spent the same amount of time doing just about anything else (without excessive studying and practice) I would have achieved a higher level of competence just by doing what I’m doing, getting a few pointers etc. There are no short cuts to competence in anything, but I’d say that chess is unique in the amount of “work” it takes to actually improve versus just playing the game and having fun.

Agreed, I have asked about reading material but can’t find the motivation to actually read or even watch videos. What has helped is playing less against people and more against engine. I’m

I like that idea. Probably a better way to “practice” while still just playing the game.

Chess is really annoying in the sense that most of moves are already cataloged that just by studying it will make ones abilities dramatically surpass others in a decent way and this is the same as the only habit that most of us hate and it is going to school. But the beauty of this is not because of having written records but seeing that the whole thing are having the patterns on what makes all of these great or worse based on the sequence and combination of moves. It makes it seems like listening to you're favorite music while traveling a long road.

I don’t see a reason to put ‘work’ in it if that is not fun for you.

I played the game for over 40 years without any work or study and enjoyed that a lot. Only last two years I started studying and to my surprise I like that maybe even more then playing the game. Maybe that day will come for you too, maybe not. As long as you have fun you are good.

(Unless of course you want to become a titled player or make a living out of it. But that is not something I am aiming for).

"In most sports or games a player will improve simply by playing. You won’t master anything, but you can get to a respectable level in most things without tons of studying and practice."

True. However, you will improve inherently drastically even without studying if you play a longer time format (say, 30mins). Of course, only to an intermediate extent (say, upto 1500) as beyond that would need you to study the game.

 

What you say it is true. One side of the problem is that most chess players put a crazy amount of time and effort into it. If I lose a game, sometimes I check the opponents and most of the time, they have played thousands of games. Thousands of games and they are still beginners, like I am. In any other activity, such a vast amount of effort, in practice or in playing, has much much visible results. I have many hobbies and if I had spent the amount of time, I have in chess, I would had probably become one of the best and certainly near pro level. I was once top ranked in another game in my country, with significantly less effort.

The funny and sad thing about it, which is certainly true about me and I guess for many others, is that I have for long time accepted that will never become good and instead, would be happy by just improving. It turns out that after a point, where you have improved by 100-400 points, it becomes nearly impossible to become any better and thus, in the end you must come into terms with playing just solely for the fun. Not to become good, not for improving, just for the fun, which is very very little for me. But the love we all have for chess prevails and we keep playing!

Blitz is arguably the most entertaining mode to play, but for people looking to improve, playing Blitz is an utter waste of time as there is just not sufficient time to think. So, what ends up happening in this case is that the more games you play is just not proportional to improving. 

I prefer to look for one reason for chess to not be annoying.

Haha

If you want to learn from experience and not study a lot of chess, what you should do is play only classical games 90 minutes per player (or maybe 60 minutes) and all that with at least 10 seconds increment per move. If you have a club where you can even play games without a clock, that's fine too. Try to play these classic games with players who are stronger than you, that will ensure that you learn from the experience, if the player has a similar level to yours that is also good, if he is a player maybe inferior to you but over time can improve, in the long term it is possible that you end up learning because in theory it will adjust to your level.

If you're in a club where there are at least 3-4 players actively playing classic games with each other, you can help each other improve. Playing classical games is the best way to strengthen your game without having to study a lot of chess, objectively studying the game is very convenient, but if you are motivated to play your best and only play classical games your level will improve considerably. I can assure you that if you put a child of, for example, 12 years old, very interested in learning, to play in a league of players with a strength of 2400 elo, this child could acquire a GM strength playing only classic games, obviously that would take a time of 2 to 4 years (it is somewhat probable, not 100% possible, but very prorable).

Playing classical games against very strong chess engines can also help, the idea is to play your best literally willing to win, although obviously the result will be losing the game, but what matters is what you can improve as a player.