whats the point
Sort:
NM
TheOldReb
Nov 13, 2007
0
#21
Ofcourse, one way to improve is to play with stronger players. I always sought out stronger opponents myself. However , you dont want them so much stronger that you get depressed and discouraged from the drubbings you receive. 
Fun? Intellectual challenge? Bah! I do it for one reason only - the ladies. Nothing makes a girl swoon like a man who knows the Caro-Kann Defense (which I don't, but that's beside the point).
I just googled "dodgeball" . now i have learnt something new to night. Why do they call it a nerd sport?
okalex wrote: Fun? Intellectual challenge? Bah! I do it for one reason only - the ladies. Nothing makes a girl swoon like a man who knows the Caro-Kann Defense (which I don't, but that's beside the point).
the man has a point... girls love it when you fork that queen...
Nov 13, 2007
0
#25
Chess is great for impressing non players about your mental abilities. I'm a county player for the under 1400's which to a good chess player who understands the game isn't really very good. But to a non player, they think that because you play for the county you must be brilliant. Gradings just go zooming over their heads because they don't understand them. Though i havn't pulled many women yet with my chess playing non expertise. :)
tonightonly7 wrote: 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?
You're missing the point. The hypothetical is to pick one or the other, not try to win at each. If I had to pick one or the other and my goal was just to win, of course I'd pick the lower rated opponent. The point is, that is not interesting or fun. I much prefer to try to win against someone near my own ability than win easily against a low rated player.
batmanmg wrote:
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?
For me, I don't believe "fun" is my primary motive as your statement seems to predicate.
I think the process of self improvement, mental discipline would be my drive to get better at chess. I don't think it's more fun now that it was when I just started out.
Also, I expect we are genetically/mentally configured to try to win at what ever we undertake. I therefore don't underestimate the drive to win, so when this can be combined in a game where there is no physical danger (not withstanding the dangers described in previous comments) with self improvement and mental discipline makes the game ideal for me.
Loomis wrote: tonightonly7 wrote: 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?
You're missing the point. The hypothetical is to pick one or the other, not try to win at each. If I had to pick one or the other and my goal was just to win, of course I'd pick the lower rated opponent. The point is, that is not interesting or fun. I much prefer to try to win against someone near my own ability than win easily against a low rated player.
I don't understand what you're winking at batmanmg. I don't think it's a secret that the intellectual challenge is to try to win. That doesn't mean that winning is the drive for playing. If it were, I would prefer to win against the low rated opponent than risk defeat against someone my own strength.
Get the distinction?
oh loomis... you amuse me... nobody here has said that one plays so that in the end they can say that they won... otherwise theres no point in playing.. you could just forgo the effort and just say that you won by defualt becuase you wanted to... watch... i played you at a game of chess and won... hah... i won i won i won... woopeee.... did i really win? no i didn't even really play... but i won anyway becusae i wanted to win and so i did... we're not saying that people are naturaly chess bullies and play for the sake of winning... but it is part of the drive to play... you wouldn't say that you enjoy chess if you could never win... not just that you didn't but you just never could it was against the rules for you to win... for the game to end you have to be checkmated and thats all there is to it... there wouldn't be much point playing... the reason we play is becuase we like to try to win though... not saying that we only want to win... but we want to try... what do we want to try doing? win thats what... but more than just win... win when it wasn't easy to win becuase an easy win could be made easier like i said before by not playing at all and just saying you won... or by cheating... letting a computer play for you and taking its credit... thats not really a game then its just a title of victor... we want to be the one that wins... and we play to win... and so that is why you play chess... so you can see if your able to win... and when you don't win... you want to get better and practice so that you can win...
note how no matter how you try to explain how im wrong... you still end up saying that you want to win... if you didn't want to win then you wouldn't try to win then would you?
I never even imagined people would be playing so that they could say they won afterwards. I thought at least the motivation would be to enjoy the actual winning.
There is a big difference between trying to win a competition and engaging in a competition for the purpose of winning. I have tried to to explain that difference with my examples, but you seem more interested in blathering than reading and understanding another person's point.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#33
well, winning/losing and drawing is part of the business of playing chess, I know of a couple of GMs out there who have taken on their computers with a beisball bat while playing Rybka and negotiation didn't go as expected!
For me, chess is a contemplative art. Its greatest attraction is its beauty. Child prodigies typically appear in only three fields: music, mathematics, and chess. Why? Because those three things involve pure pattern, something that is linked to the pure primordial cosmic patterning of the universe that is able to manifest through minds blessed to be receptive to it.
The goal of improvement at chess for me is to achieve greater chess understanding. The competition is a form of validation, a way of proving to oneself that the greater understanding achieved is real and not illusory. Greater chess understanding means greater success against more difficult opponents. But the understanding is pleasureable in and of itself, and the pleasure, not the winning, is the goal.
Like any pleasurable mind-altering experience, chess can also be dangerously addictive. I prefer to keep chess in perspective as a humane and civilizing activity, part of a well-lived and balanced life.
All in all, I identify with the views of Loomis expressed in #4 above.
chess is good for the mind. sure you would like to win when you play, but it's not the end of the world if you should lose. I play for the enjoyment of playing, and to intellectually stimulate my mind.
The reason I play chess is I enjoy the challenge. not the challenge of beating my opponent the challenge of beating myself; of constantly improving. The focus is not on becoming "really good" at chess it is the process of improving your own abilities that leads to being good. Winning is simply the proof that your hard work has been successful; you have improved.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#37
tonightonly7 wrote: 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.
I couldn't have said it any better.
Nov 13, 2007
0
#38
Ricardo_Morro wrote:
For me, chess is a contemplative art. Its greatest attraction is its beauty. Child prodigies typically appear in only three fields: music, mathematics, and chess. Why? Because those three things involve pure pattern, something that is linked to the pure primordial cosmic patterning of the universe that is able to manifest through minds blessed to be receptive to it.
The goal of improvement at chess for me is to achieve greater chess understanding. The competition is a form of validation, a way of proving to oneself that the greater understanding achieved is real and not illusory. Greater chess understanding means greater success against more difficult opponents. But the understanding is pleasureable in and of itself, and the pleasure, not the winning, is the goal.
Like any pleasurable mind-altering experience, chess can also be dangerously addictive. I prefer to keep chess in perspective as a humane and civilizing activity, part of a well-lived and balanced life.
All in all, I identify with the views of Loomis expressed in #4 above.
quote:
from Loomis's post #4 in this topic
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, I agree with loomis on the "nobody cares how good you are at chess unless you are an elite chess player" part, but I don't agree when he says that we are all just patzers at different levels, since I have seen/experienced chess genius from none titled chess players several times in my life to the point that I could not believe my eyes, and the fact that such a display of chess virtuosity was happening right in front of me was mind blowing, I am a chess geek who has been into chess (intellectually and actively) for as far back as I can remember, and even so I felt like asking for an autograph, which in fact I did, I kid you not!
well you guys are all self rightous ninnys... godlike in your purity and infalicy of motives im sure... its like saying that you eat purely for the taste of the food... or you work for the love of your job and the money is just to maintain your current life... no greed or glutony involved ever im sure... and you jack off for practice is all... you can fool yourselves and eachother into believing your all regular buddas when it comes to chess but you won't fool me...
Over the years as my chess strength grew I found I actually had less fun/enjoyment from chess. Why? Well, when I was a weaker player I just played for fun and didnt care much about the result. I often played stronger (higher rated) players and was supposed to lose anyway. A tournament success for me would be if I beat at least one of the higher rated players. As I improved I was "expected" to win more games, now that I was often higher rated than my opponents. This "expectation" puts a lot of pressure on the individual and losing games you "should" win becomes a problem to deal with. When I started playing the joy of winning was greater than the agony of defeat , this has been reversed it seems. Sad, but true, at least in my case.