x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

The Old Days :)

  • #1

    It feels that the old days, and my old games were better, and better times. I don't know if this is similiar to anyone else, but It is to me. It feels like, the days when I was 900, they were like my childhood days of chess, a time when I didn't care about 'opening theory' or being a tryhard to get good. I wanted so hard to get to like... 1400, or 1600. I revered them, I was like "Dayum, those guys are amazing" Now, if I play a 1600, i just think: oh no, here's gonna be a cheap patzer game that will get me like 1 point. I'm 2193 Slow chess. higher than I thought I could ever get. But now I'm here. I'm better at chess. But I don't enjoy it as much as I did when I was a chess "child" And I wanna go back to the old days. :(

  • #2

    Even my recent games aren't as cool as my old ones. They're more accurate yes, but boring. Kinda of like the rest of the chess world. The 1800 to 1950's were like the Romantic Period, where games were more interesting, but less accurate, but these days, it is in reverse. 

    I know nobody cares, this is more for me to get off my (fat) chest. 

    But here's a game from back then: 

     
  • #3
    It’s called fear of success. Really.
  • #4

    Maybe you need to play fast games and have fun...I played one game here, I was in winner position, but I want to have fun and I give chances to my opponent..we draw but I have fun.. What you think to have fun in unrated games?

  • #5

    I know of what you speak.  Chess was most interesting in the ~1600 range for me.  Games had enough accuracy to tell an interesting story, but enough random WTF wild moments to make for memorable and unique experiences.  Things like castling queenside in the Sicilian, meeting the Stonewall with h6 and g5, meetings the King's Gambit with d6 and f5 just because, hey, why not?

    A reason that magic period of chess has vanished, I think, is the ability to see the future.  By that, I mean I can look at the pawn structure, see the piece layout and know how the game should proceed (eg, White will attack the Queenside while Black counter-attacks the Kingside).  Back as a 1500-1600, I was completely ignorant of this, and so every single move was an adventure.

    Chess was also emotional.  "I feel like attacking now, so time for f4 and f5."  Nowadays I base it on boring, logical positional considerations.  Games feel more like mathematics, and though I like math, I miss the fantasy of being less skilled ... though I'll admit winning is nice.

  • #6
    SmithyQ wrote:

    I know of what you speak.  Chess was most interesting in the ~1600 range for me.  Games had enough accuracy to tell an interesting story, but enough random WTF wild moments to make for memorable and unique experiences.  Things like castling queenside in the Sicilian, meeting the Stonewall with h6 and g5, meetings the King's Gambit with d6 and f5 just because, hey, why not?

    A reason that magic period of chess has vanished, I think, is the ability to see the future.  By that, I mean I can look at the pawn structure, see the piece layout and know how the game should proceed (eg, White will attack the Queenside while Black counter-attacks the Kingside).  Back as a 1500-1600, I was completely ignorant of this, and so every single move was an adventure.

    Chess was also emotional.  "I feel like attacking now, so time for f4 and f5."  Nowadays I base it on boring, logical positional considerations.  Games feel more like mathematics, and though I like math, I miss the fantasy of being less skilled ... though I'll admit winning is nice.

    Great response. I feel that too. I used to play the queens gambit like a madman, my old plan was like this: 

    Now, I play the London system, still quite a good opening, but I liked my old version because it takes me back to the past.

  • #7

    I'm happy to trade chess brains with either of you hahaha.

  • #8
    i hear ya bro, like i said 1000 times, evolution brings no joy.
  • #9

    I think you need to find new motivations.  I returned to chess this year after many years away and I'm now reaching the point where my rating is leveling off (1700's - 1800's).  I'm motivated to becoming better at tactics pattern recognition and attack planning. I'm also motivated to maintain my rating, even if it means winning only half the time.

  • #10

    Cognition is like a ski slope.  As you get older and lose brain cells, you find yourself going downhill.  The trick is to start higher up on the hill when you were born. 

  • #11

    I said something similar in my post, in the P.S. 

    https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-do-we-play-chess-3

    P.S. I think there is an assumed myth in chess that somehow the stronger player you become the more you will enjoy the game. Looking back on my limited chess playing career I find that the opposite might be true. I think I may have enjoyed the game more when I was younger and had that innocent mind, the beginners mind. When I didn't have so many shoulds and shouldn'ts operating in my brain. When the possibilities were endless, then too it seemed my enjoyment was proportionate to those possibilities. 

  • #12

    There don't seem to be any responses posting the opposite opinion, so I'll post it here.

    I have found that I enjoy chess more the better I get, simply because I am able to understand and solve much more complex problems than before. Chess is simply much richer in possibilities. It may help that I have an opening repertoire that emphasizes getting interesting positions with lots of play, as that gives me much more to think about. Perhaps the London system isn't too good for you, and that you should choose a more complex option, which you will find more interesting? Just an opinion.

Top

Online Now