Pros and cons of chess

so many words saying so little to so many

For all practical purposes, intuition is just a subconscious intelligent guess by (instead of) being objective about the reality of the position otb.

1. intuition, subconscious

2. guess, objective x guess

3. reality?!

Chess is a healthy hobby or habit to concentrate extra time on that actually requires complexity and skill to master and involves other people

CON: Chess is an evil game, for evil people.    PRO: Chess is a wonderful game, for wonderful people.

Pro: cheese is tasty and nutritious

Con: cheese is only found on the moon

as for the rules of chess, i would definitely change them...they do not make sense.  As for the cunning approach on winning, I find it very violent. Being good at it, give me a sense of power, and being good at something, is better than being bad at nothing. Winning is something and loosing is nothing. Life itself is a game, we should play to win, it is nothing to die, but it sure is something to live:)

October 9th is both National Chess Day and National Moldy Cheese Day...coincidence?

I wonder who the lobby was for National Moldy Cheese Day?

My argument will branch from Elroch's target group for his list of Pros and Cons of chess: the chess players.

There are several types of chess players who dedicate a lot of time to the game.

A. There are those who make a living out of it by competing in tournaments for the prize money, who are hired chess tutors, teachers or coaches, who write news articles, books and manuals, who build stand-alone chess computers, who write chess engines for PCs, who manufacture chess equipment, who produce instruction videos, and the rare artists.

B. There are those who play casual and competitive chess just for the sheer fun and thrill of the game.

When we consider the people who make a living out of chess, the points under Elroch's "Cons of Chess" do not apply anymore. Here are the original bullet points and the possible counter-arguments by those who play chess for the money:

1. "Chess serves no real purpose outside itself" - Chess pays the bills.

2. "Chess uses time and effort, and displaces other activities which might be better than it in some ways" - The same goes for most people who go to work eight hours everyday.

3. "Chess is inherently unconstructive." - Teaching chess and writing chess literature for educational purposes are constructive in many levels for the students who want to learn.

4. "Very few chess players can earn money from chess" - Just like any industry, it varies for everyone who is in it for the money. Chess has made Kasparov, Karpov, Kramnik and Anand quite rich but not all chess artists and news writers and reporters can same the same.

5. "Playing in frequent OTB tournaments is expensive and takes a lot of time." - For competitive players who want to be invited to the most prestigious tournaments with lucrative prizes, this is part of the career path. The same goes for atheletes who compete in events to get to the olympics.

6. "Chess can be obsessive, which can be damaging to other areas of life." -  Anything in excess can be damaging and it applies to anything in life.

I will pause here and invite comments.

Did you read the following blog postings on chess.com?

http://blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/chess-is-good-for-your-mind

http://blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/chess-is-bad-for-your-mind

The these May 2008 articles have the same theme as your original topic. Coincidence?

@everyone: I would like to hear your comments to my post (#180) prior to this one.

Chess literature is a con-thing. Great minds write them, then sell them:D People are marching their troops in checkered fields...and then go to bed.  I'm sure its a game for weirdos!  Men and woman are marching their troops-day and night!  They even share ideas, and...... some....... on autopilot!

I think spending time with chess is similar to learning Latin as a second language. It was part of classic education for only one reason: it teaches you about studying any further languages in the future and the basic linguistic principles (memory builder for words and thinking improvement for using the rules). Playing chess is teaching you to think in a multidimensional level, accept and recognize and fight for seemingly minuscule advantages. Plus, as Tarrasch said, it makes you happy akin listening to AC/DC...

Chess literature offers education and entertainment for the receptive students. There will always be someone who will benefit from an improvement book irregardless of the criticisms of higher rated players who do not need it. There is no "con" in learning.

If you find yourself cheated, return the book as soon as possible. You'll feel better immediately.

Win! I agree that chess study can be used as a means to imbibe the discipline for continued education or learning for virtually anything.

This is yet another glowing contradiction to Elroch's con that "chess serves no real purpose outside itself."

And you don't even have to get paid for that!

Returning a book?  Perhaps we read too much into logic, and forget that creativity is free.  There are 960 positions, yet, we write books as if we only understand one.

Um... of course if you are in a position where returning purchased books is not easy/convenient, then I would suggest that you spend some time browsing through them before making the purchase.

As I have read in dozens of chess books, none of the authors or commentators could claim that their analysis or explanation is the ultimate truth.

For books analyzed by the players themselves, they only offer their thoughts during the actual game. Post-mortem analysis can reveal better moves or errors in their judgements. Even Kasparov admitted that his analysis of the games in his own "The Test of Time" book changed 10 years after the first publication which led to his new series, "Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess."

As for the variations, there will always be more than the book would show. But as the masters would point out, the others would be losing or not as strong. You are encouraged to pursue further analysis, check against your favorite chess engines and play them in your matches. That is what learning is about.

Whether you like it or not, the authors of chess books have done their job when you start contradicting and proving their ideas to be wrong rather than putting them off as outright blunders.

Blunders determine outcome...We can write books about blunders and how to manage them.  Would it be a blunder to play black? Would it be wise to make a move, if it was not necessary?  Why would white want to move? What motivate a game of chess? Would the ultimate win be, that of playing black? -or perhaps a line that was not played before?  Can a blunder create success? Can the value of pieces create the outcome in a game...do rules apply to those that understand them? Should authors have answers?  The pros on chess, is to wage war, without the loss of human life...it is a brutal game. The cons, is that its addictive, and will remain so.  War is always senseless, -if you look at the bigger picture...Chess is war.  We can hand our books in, if we want:)   The world can function without war, it can do with greater leaders.  Just another thing...one game of chess have many possibilities of checkmate...the one that we choose might be a few blunders to many for spectators understanding...yet, the outcome is the same. Computers can scan lines that make a person feel he had blundered, but in fact, it would not change the outcome, it  can only make you feel bad.

sometimes i play dud moves waiting for their error

Hello, Petrosian.

It is hardly surprising that I had not seen the blog posts, but they seem interesting and relevant, and far more detailed on their more specific points than my original post. By only considering the effect of chess on the mind, I feel the two posts are actually a better and well-chosen starting point for discussion than my original post in this thread.

With regard to the claim in chessroboto's post #180 that the possibility of a career as a chess professional is proof that chess is worth time and effort, this is true for a very small minority of people, almost all of whom are approaching master standard in their childhood. It may also appear to be a justification to a much larger number of people who aren't realistic about their likely success. While everyone has the right to deceive themselves as they wish, from an independent point of view one would have to say that, for all but the extremely talented, chess can only be said to allow people to believe that they might end up as chess professionals. This belief, like many other beliefs, may be considered worthwhile because people enjoy it, which is often considered justification enough for an activity.