What is you motivation for playing chess?

Would you,

1 Lose a thousand games but win one with a masterpiece

2. Win a thousand games but each time because of your opponent's blunder.

I choose #1! I love chess.com but ratings are superfluous. I always play the Morra or Vienna. The odds of losing go up but the odds of creating a brilliancy also go up.

I will never be a grandmaster but I have created masterpieces! They are rare but the joy of creating a work of art is worth it.

I always strive for unstable positions. I always try to castle on the opposite side as my opponent does. Since most people prefer king side castling, I usually do. I prefer queen side castling. It develops the rook and I hate using more moves then I have to. I will , however, try my hardest to castle king's side if my opponent castles queenside!

The guys at my chess club say that I have invented a new school of chess, hyper-classical! LOL

I hate it when I am playing black and white plays 1. d4  I know that the game will lack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panache

I cannot handle what has happened in America and refuse to watch the news since hate won the election, so I decided to learn to play Chess to occupy my mind and keep it refreshed.  I can spend hours watching videos, clicking thru games, reading about my Favorite Chessmaster (Carlsen of course).  I play tons of computer games at all levels. I lose badly especially to the high levels, but I watch to see what went wrong.  I came to the conclusion, it is ok to lose, doesn't mean you are stupid, just learning but it is fun to move the pieces around and capture their pieces the hold dear.  

I don't play much w/those on here cause I don't want to waste their time but I need to get over it.  I should give them the pleasure of the win.  But, hey, watch out!  I am getting better.

One thing:  I click thru games, but I get annoyed that the game will admit defeat before the actual checkmate (they know there are no moves).  I want to see it played out so I can understand and not left wondering.  Maybe we can ask the players to please play the full game for us.

One more thing. Is there a way to reset your ratings. Started when I knew nothing but played anyway so my rankings are real low.  I'm better now so my ratings should reflect.

I want to play tournaments again like I did in high school c.1980.  I need to get a 1200  rating that I honestly deserve to have, and then go sit across from a live human being separated by a plastic Staunton chess set and a clock.  I'd like to be rated at least 1200 here because it would give me just a little bit of confidence going in. Maybe I could beat someone, anyone! That's my motivation. That's why I pay the full fee. I need to learn so I can go play out in the world. At my age, it's slow going, But I'm patient. If it takes a year or 2 or 3, that's okay.

Oh, and there are posts here outlining how to join an official organisation and register, right? When I played it was the USCF. Are they still around?

Rose, since you like going over games check this one out! A queen sac and then a forced 8 move mate and look at where black's king ends up!!! This was not Emmanuel ( world champion) Lasker, I would play a thousand games and lose them all to be able to create this work of art!!!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1259009

PS It takes a while to load.

For some reason white's queen is an X. Play over it anyway. The X will move like a queen. Hopefully it is a temporary glitch.

@ rose,

About the games not being played fully, maybe you should watch some commented games, commentator often show one line explaining resignation. About uncommented master games that you can find here on the data base, you can run stockfish to analyse them. Chess engine are not necessarilly a tool as comprehensive as a human commentator, especially if you're still learnign tactics, but can be great if used properly. The way I use it is to check afterward if the moves I thought of looking a position are goo, and to be provided a refutation if they are not.

About your rating, you should not worry much. Rating systems, especially glicko rating, are designed to converge fast to your true level. The thing is, if yor true level is say 1200 and your rating is 1000, you will easily crush players rated in the 800-1100 you get paired with, and get a shittons of point from your wins against 1200 players, while only losing few when you lose. So don't wory so much about your rating, and if you feel like it is inaccurate, just play more, it will correct quickely.

As for the OP, there are many reason why I play chess, but beauty of games is definitely one of the main ones, and I really like your mindset.

I love to play unsound Gambits once in a while, tried for long duras Gambit, although it's more losing than interesting. I used to hate the caro kann as white but recently educated my self about it and fell in love with the Ne5 line. As white, I try to play the Halloween Gambit which happens to be very rich in my opinion, even while losing to a proper defense, and as white, I try to get my liver fried, a this is a common theme at my level (my secret weapon is Nd4, thanks to st Louis Scholastic center(s Youtube channel).

I also dislike 1.d4, for the reasons you mentioned. I think I'll start playing the modern defense, it might not be the most eventfull defense, but defending in cramped position sounds challenging.

Chess enhances the litle grey cells....and that is the reason...to improve concentration and focus...

To be champion in my country. By achieving a rating of 2200 that's possible, yes.

Neither (1) or (2).

Conjecturing up "masterpieces" are fictitious at my level of play. Hence, I find losses just as rewarding for correction, instruction and, ultimately my motivation to improve.

Although not necessarilly "masterpieces" technically speaking, players of any level can play beautiful games, and that can be a noble motivation. Of course, a good level at chess helps creating and appreciating beautiful games, and Dunnigs-Kruger effect expects good players like you to be even better at appreciating than at creating, but I feel like you should not underestimate the aestetic or performative value of your games.

I play chess to crush a man's ego.