There has to be something in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rattle when you shake it.
Suicide over Chess? Why?
Sort:
DrSpudnik wrote:
There has to be something in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rattle when you shake it.
hmm perhaps that rattling sound is naught but some projection of the mind?
As far as I could tell there was nothing apparently wrong with Craig, he was at our club playing in a Cardiff-Barry match just a few days before his death and seemed his normal self. But obviously there must've been something badly wrong beneath the surface. Whether there was anything other than chess involved nobody can know.
RonaldJosephCote wrote:
I give up There WAS NO persecution. (except in his mind). It was a tax bill. He lived for 20 yrs in New York. Then he lived for 20 yrs on the west coast. The government didn't bother him at either location. He was over 40 when he left the country of his own free will. If he had come back, he could have lived anywhere he could afford too. Driven any car he could afford too, gotten any job that he qualified for, used the libraries, parks, and postal system, etc. HOWEVER; if he inherited anything of value, the IRS would of put a lean on it--i.e. property, bank accounts, jewelry, paintings. People are in bankrupcy everyday in this country. I have a student loan that's in default. There is ONLY one way I can get that cleared, and that is to PAY IT! I'll be MORE than happy to when I have the money. Nobody wants to be raked over the coals, but the Government is willing to work with people on payments.
!
Go back to your books schoolboy.
As for topic, as has been mentioned i believe this has little if anything to do with chess.
I found his chess data, FIDE apparently deleted it from their website. http://chess-db.com/public/pinfo.jsp?id=1802461
His highest elo was only a year and a half ago and he was only 40 points off it when he offed himself. That doesn't suggest it was all to do with chess. He was by no means talented, but not some ridiculous embarrassing rating either.... sounds like half the people around. Overall there is no evidence from his recent chess play that it contributed to his suicide. Sounds like his friends and family were searching for answers and the press then jumped on it. Nobody should jump to conclusions. Also a little respect for the dead.... if a person was in such agony they thought to end their own life, I'm sure most would be mortified if you took something a little frivolous they were recently interested in and stated "this was their life".
madhacker wrote:
there must've been something badly wrong beneath the surface. Whether there was anything other than chess involved nobody can know.
yeah we never really know, sad day for your club, a great pity he sounds like an excellent character.
The feeling when you have given every ounce of effort only to find its not good enough.....That feeling of failure is difficult when you have prepared and prepared and have expectations based on preparation. Yea, i could see it. Expectations can be dangerous. I smashed a $2500 laptop into a million pieces over a game once........ I don't think i could shoot myself but i absolutely could see the personality that would.
robbie_1969 wrote:
yeah we never really know, sad day for your club, a great pity he sounds like an excellent character.
I didn't know him that well, he played for Barry and I'm Cardiff (same local league). I can only remember ever playing him once or possibly twice. I don't think anyone knew him well, he was a quiet guy who kept himself to himself.
Initially they ruled out suicide but then it seems they changed their mind. I think he was ambitious about chess without really being a very strong player, which I can imagine would be frustrating, but I can't believe that alone would make someone kill themselves.
To harm oneself over a chess game or any other mistake for that matter is illogical because we are human and prone to aberration and therefore its inevitable that we will make mistakes. To think otherwise is to ignore the reality. Being ambitious is not a problem in itself if the goals we set are reachable, but again this takes a degree of humility. Rather than becoming frustrated surely we should be searching for solutions? Perhaps it was the futility of it all which overcame him or some kind of distorted perspective of self worth or lack of as the case may be? Its difficult to say. Imagine though having little friends and attempting to gain a sense of self through playing chess. All of your ambitions and hopes and dreams, self esteem and understanding intrinsically linked to the outcome a chess game? Its enough to make anyone feel embittered and the loneliness itself would be a killer.
Morphy was correct to evaluate chess as simply a means of recreation and when it starts taking on more sinister proportions then all manner of controversies and egotism abounds. This is why abuse exists on live chess, people have yet to divorce their egocentricities from events on the chessboard and events which have little to do with them as sentient beings takes on grotesque proportions.
One should try to remain objective at all times which is not an easy thing to do if your opponents has a knight firmly lodged on d6 and your kingside castle is having its foundations destroyed by marauding petards!
Interesting thoughts. It's best summed up with the cliche "It's only a game". I get the impression that Craig's ambitions were unrealistic - he was about 1900 and perhaps liked to think about himself as a potential master player. As you say, ambitions must be realistic. Aiming to gain 50 or 100 ELO points in a year is reasonable I think.
I suppose it's a sliding scale. I've just finished playing in a tournament where I played badly, missed chances against strong players, and my FIDE rating dropped under 2000, which I really don't like (it looks so much better when it starts with a 2!) but I felt depressed for about 1 day then just got over it and went back to work yesterday and I'm looking forward to playing my next tournament and getting the 2000 back. That's the "normal" end of the continuum, and I guess you could say Craig was at the extreme end.
madhacker wrote:
Interesting thoughts. It's best summed up with the cliche "It's only a game". I get the impression that Craig's ambitions were unrealistic - he was about 1900 and perhaps liked to think about himself as a potential master player. As you say, ambitions must be realistic. Aiming to gain 50 or 100 ELO points in a year is reasonable I think.
I suppose it's a sliding scale. I've just finished playing in a tournament where I played badly, missed chances against strong players, and my FIDE rating dropped under 2000, which I really don't like (it looks so much better when it starts with a 2!) but I felt depressed for about 1 day then just got over it and went back to work yesterday and I'm looking forward to playing my next tournament and getting the 2000 back. That's the "normal" end of the continuum, and I guess you could say Craig was at the extreme end.
Yes you make some very interesting points. I really wonder if its possible to be genuinely objective and to be absolutely detached from the outcome of a game or tournament. Is it even desirable? Perhaps its this mixture of logic and emotional attachment which makes chess so appealing. winning is fun and losing is not so much fun. I really wonder if it should be the case. Should we not really embrace these losses like a true and trusted friend, telling us where we need to make adjustments for our progress rather than treating them as an enemy to be shunned and despised? I dunno, I really dont. All that its safe to say is its best to remain philosophical as it seems to be the healthy option :D
I wouldn't say it's a good idea (or very natural) to try to "embrace" losses, that's sort of the opposite extreme and would remove any motivation for improvement.
I say that you try your hardest to win but if you don't, take it as a good sport and try to learn from it. You can learn from analysing all your own games mind, even wins.
ipcress12 wrote:
i guess it's a little spooky that two of the best players in the world for their slices of time -- Fischer and Morphy -- were crippled by mental illness.
After those two, though, I can't think of any noteworthy examples. To be sure chess players fall prey to mental problems just as all people can. But the "crazy chess player" stereotype doesn't seem to have much to it.
You have to add Steinitz and Kasparov to that list of the mentally ill.
Jul 22, 2015
0
#115
that's quite sad.That's why you shouldn't take this game too seriously.
Any adult who kills himself because of a chess match is a very mentally unstable and coward person.
Tragic! Chess should never be taking that serious, one has the talent if one doesn't have it, just play for fun. I understand disappointment, sometime I play well and other time play badly, I just my flaws and lack talent and play for fun.
The tragedy is that chess is empty.