whats the point
Sort:
That was the question I asked when I was 16 years old , which resulted in my donating all of my chess equipment and materials to a thrift shop. I didn't think about chess again until August 2007 when it came up at my job. Now I realize the only point of chess for the amateur is to have fun.
but if nobody tried to be better than amature there wouldn't be any pros would there? or are people naturaly endowed with chess magic in there blood?
"Many [people] are obsessed with hobbies that have little or no objective measurement of success. People who assemble train sets and visit train museums and buy countless train books aren't worried about being good at it. They like it and that's enough, and it's also enough for chess." -- ChessNinja.com
This is a very poignant quote from a well known source. It hits the key point that playing chess because you like it is good enough. Nobody cares how good you are at chess unless you're an elite grandmaster. Other than that, we're all just patzers at different levels.
All that having been said, there are different ways to enjoy chess. Simply moving the pieces around the board doesn't cut it for everybody all the time. I personally enjoy challenging myself intellectually. Chess is very well suited for this. There are no real stakes and I can readily find people who present new creative challenges for me. Winning is nice, but playing at the edge of my abilities with a chance to lose is preferable any day over winning games. If winning was my objective, I would'n care about getting better, I'd just find low rater people to abuse.
I have two reasons for persuing chess improvement other than simply to win more. After all, chess improvement doesn't typically lead to winning more games, it leads to tougher competition. My first reason goes along with what I said above, it is an intellectual challenge to try to improve. It's mental excersize that makes my brain feel sharp. The second reason is that I enjoy the beautiful complexity of chess. The unexpected possibilities that arise from the simplest to the most complex positions are enjoyable. I find that the better I am at the game, the more of this part of chess is accessible to me.
I have found, and of course this is one personal experience, that I have received more and more pleasure from the game as my skill has increased. I love the feeling of developing my mental acuteness and agility.
Humans are competitive by nature, so its only natural that they also try to win when they play games. Many say they only play for the fun of it but isnt it more fun when you win?
Reb, given the choice of playing someone my own strength where the outcome is 50/50 or playing someone 600 points lower rated than I am where I'm pretty sure the outcome will be a win for me, I'll take playing someone my own strength every day. So what does that say about wanting to win? (In fact, I'll take playing with someone higher rated than me where my chance of winning is lower!)
i agree with reb... nobody goes into a game of chess without the intention of winning... (well maybe not on rare occasion but for the most part) you make your moves to play for the win... and of course its not much of a victory against weaker opponents like a seasoned champ winning a boxing match against a fifth grader... hehe... theres only triumph when theres something equal to your skills to win against.. but its also true that in the long run... chess is about as important as poetry or painting or building with legos... a hobby and an unprofitable one at that... but luckily it doesn't cost any more than a few bucks for a set and the time to find someone to play against... or even free at the local library to play here on this site... ^_^ ... and like any other sport... holding the aspirations of chess mastery and nothing else is a rather ill faited dream... they don't make football players hold a passing gpa to stay on the team for nothing...
A classmate of mine was killed in high school football practice. I never heard of anyone who died from playing chess. I would much prefer my sons to be chess enthusiasts than football players. The idiocy of schools banning dodge ball because they say its too "violent" while keeping football programs in the schools is staggering.
i heard a story of a man who was shot over a chess game... i forget from where so it might not be true... but i heard of it... that and some people have become so obsessed... although it could have been anything not just chess... that they threw away the rest of their lives to persue it... so it may not be quite as safe as one might suspect... but surely less commonly dangerous...
Nov 13, 2007
0
#11
Reb wrote:
A classmate of mine was killed in high school football practice. I never heard of anyone who died from playing chess. I would much prefer my sons to be chess enthusiasts than football players. The idiocy of schools banning dodge ball because they say its too "violent" while keeping football programs in the schools is staggering.
I would much prefer my sons not live in fear. You're more likely to die on your way to a chess tournament than in a football practice.
nope... your forgetting the trip to the football practice... it negates the trip to the chess tournament in probabilities
zeteclark wrote: Reb wrote:
A classmate of mine was killed in high school football practice. I never heard of anyone who died from playing chess. I would much prefer my sons to be chess enthusiasts than football players. The idiocy of schools banning dodge ball because they say its too "violent" while keeping football programs in the schools is staggering.
I would much prefer my sons not live in fear. You're more likely to die on your way to a chess tournament than in a football practice.
Do you assume my sons live in fear? They do not. Apparently you missed my point, which is that its idiotic for schools to ban dodge ball as too violent while keeping football programs that are far more violent and dangerous. There are also more serious injuries in baseball and basketball. The worst "injury" I ever saw from a game of dodge ball is a bloody nose.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#14
batmanmg wrote: nope... your forgetting the trip to the football practice... it negates the trip to the chess tournament in probabilities
My point about not living in fear stands.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#15
Reb wrote: zeteclark wrote: Reb wrote:
A classmate of mine was killed in high school football practice. I never heard of anyone who died from playing chess. I would much prefer my sons to be chess enthusiasts than football players. The idiocy of schools banning dodge ball because they say its too "violent" while keeping football programs in the schools is staggering.
I would much prefer my sons not live in fear. You're more likely to die on your way to a chess tournament than in a football practice.
Do you assume my sons live in fear? They do not. Apparently you missed my point, which is that its idiotic for schools to ban dodge ball as too violent while keeping football programs that are far more violent and dangerous. There are also more serious injuries in baseball and basketball. The worst "injury" I ever saw from a game of dodge ball is a bloody nose.OK, I understand. I missed your point. I thought you were saying schools shouldn't endorse football programs. Now I see that you're saying it's silly to call dodgeball dangerous.
In that case, I agree with you 100%, and I apologize for my snippy response. :)
zeteclark wrote: Reb wrote: zeteclark wrote: Reb wrote: A classmate of mine was killed in high school football practice. I never heard of anyone who died from playing chess. I would much prefer my sons to be chess enthusiasts than football players. The idiocy of schools banning dodge ball because they say its too "violent" while keeping football programs in the schools is staggering. I would much prefer my sons not live in fear. You're more likely to die on your way to a chess tournament than in a football practice. OK, I understand. I missed your point. I thought you were saying schools shouldn't endorse football programs. Now I see that you're saying it's silly to call dodgeball dangerous. In that case, I agree with you 100%, and I apologize for my snippy response. :)
hurray.. the world just took one more step towards universal peace
Nov 13, 2007
0
#17
batmanmg wrote: i agree with reb... nobody goes into a game of chess without the intention of winning... (well maybe not on rare occasion but for the most part) you make your moves to play for the win... and of course its not much of a victory against weaker opponents like a seasoned champ winning a boxing match against a fifth grader... hehe... theres only triumph when theres something equal to your skills to win against.. but its also true that in the long run... chess is about as important as poetry or painting or building with legos... a hobby and an unprofitable one at that... but luckily it doesn't cost any more than a few bucks for a set and the time to find someone to play against... or even free at the local library to play here on this site... ^_^ ... and like any other sport... holding the aspirations of chess mastery and nothing else is a rather ill faited dream... they don't make football players hold a passing gpa to stay on the team for nothing...
what's the point in some people expending over 10,000.00 bucks on speakers and turbo systems for their cars without having enough money to take care of their bills?
I would say they like speakers and turbo systems on their cars, I guess.
well, some people like chess so much that they want to get really good at it.
the point is don't try to get really good at chess, take my word for it!
Apology accepted! I told my sons they could play football if they wanted to , was their decision, they chose not to for the same reasons I did pretty much. They did play some baseball however.
people that spend 10,000 bucks on speakers are what i like to call foolish... the only good that'll do for them is ruin their hearing... i think if your going to be obsessed with a meaningless thing... go with chess.. at least it makes you seem smarter...
Loomis wrote: Reb, given the choice of playing someone my own strength where the outcome is 50/50 or playing someone 600 points lower rated than I am where I'm pretty sure the outcome will be a win for me, I'll take playing someone my own strength every day. So what does that say about wanting to win? (In fact, I'll take playing with someone higher rated than me where my chance of winning is lower!)
But in each case you would want to win, right?
so there are tons of books on the subject... and people are always trying to better themselves in it... but whats the point of being really good at chess? would you say that the novices playing other novices have less fun than the pros? and if you think that being a better chess player is more fun... then it is about winning... maybe not winning all the time.. .but if you don't win ever... then you aren't very good right? and being good at a game makes it more fun... so you get better... to.. win... other than winning ... whats the point of being really good at chess?