Which is more Fun ? Playing Chess or Studying Chess

I seem to be the opposite. For me, the fun is playing. The only games I've looked over are those that I lose, where I'll go through the game to see where I may have messed up, or, how the opponent's play was superior to mine.

The "infuriating" remark is why I don't spend too much time (hardly any) going through so many games. I don't need something else in my life to make me want to pull my hair out.

Of course, this is why my rating is what it is, and, there are so many others (like you) better than me.

Truth be told, my rating here is probably 200 points higher than what it would be if I played OTB. No analyze feature there. 

I love studying chess. Seriously. I am fascinated by the interplay of geometries and find working through complex endgame positions exhilirating, even if it can be tedious at times. 

It reminds me in some ways of cooking. I love to cook, but if the dish I'm making requires me to chop a bunch of onions, sometimes I wonder if it's worth it. But after I taste the final dish, I realize that the bit of tedium wasn't all that bad, and the end result was worth a few tears. 

Thanks for the recent posts. I like to play Chess because I enjoy the game plus having the benefit of exercising my brain ( as mentioned in my Oldtimers thread ).

Ivandh you mentioned studying Organic Chemistry, just the thought of doing that makes me nervous  lol. My main area of Academic interest was History going right back to when I was in Kindergarden ( I've heard rumours tho that some people hate History --- unbelievable ).  

Studying the great games is a lot of fun.  But playing in a great game, or even not so great, to me is even more fun. Studying the game in play and looking for the good move is what makes chess exciting.  Of course winning is always more fun than losing. But even in a loss, if it was an exciting game, it can be rewarding good fun.

I agree that games you play are more interesting when you finish - during a game if a great move is made you are still double checking and worrying if it was some blunder, especially OTB. Once you finish you know if the moves you made were any good. Also, I enjoy playing well in losses more then playing horrible in wins. 

Thanks for the post Onthehouse. I'm with you, I've had games that went 50 to 75 or more moves only to end up as a Draw and it was quite a lot of fun.

To some extent I think I would prefer your attitude to the game rather than mine.

Playing the game for fun must surely be make the more sense than any other...

In any event, I can't help the fact that I want to play the 'perfect game', and as a result I'm on edge throughout a game trying to achieve this.

To date I've only managed a couple of 'perfect' games, but missed sooo many with silly little errors, and its these that prevent the enjoyment till its over.

When I go through my wins, if any, lol, I am in total awe at how a silly win, could have been less silly

For a game that ended in 38 moves, actually could have ended in 29 had I seen a mate in 3

I love history too, but I can do that at home. Can't say the same for chemistry!

I think that many are forced to learn it against their will as kids, and thereby develop an abiding hatred. Still it is amazing that you can take all of the most exciting lives that have ever been lived, throw them all together and have someone call it boring.

I think the problem is with how it's taught.  History is incredibly interesting.  Memorizing and regurgitating dates, names and events isn't.

It seems to me that the answer depends upon the temperament of the person, the player that is. More active, out-going personalities are going to enjoy playing more than sitting alone studying. Whereas, for the more passive, inward-dwelling types study may prove to be the ticket to fun. (And I am not using the word "passive" negatively)

I much prefer to play despite the nerve wracking that goes on, because it is, for me, easier than studying. Studying is like homework which, in my experience, few people really enjoy. And yet, despite preferring to play rather than study, I make myself study nonetheless because I know it's good for me.

And, there are some games that I study which are pure objects of delight. I think immediately of Morphy.

Thanks for all of the recent posts. One of the Chess organizations that I belong to is the CCCA based here in Canada. The CCCA send out three newsletters per year and a very popular feature is the Chess puzzles in the newsletters. Some people luv Chess puzzles but I have never really tried them. 

Thanks for the photo Echecs06, mind you I can't seem remember which film it is from.

Of course, playing (or to be exact that feeling just before the game begins) is more fun. But when you see that a oponent is outplaying your ignorance, you wish that you have studyed more. One said to me-You cant learn if there is no joy in studying. I guess,there is the key. P.S. Ex my Eng.

Thanks for the post Neslanovac, your English is fine. Over 50 years ago when I arrived in Canada I didn't know any English at all ( beyond the word " Cowboy "  lol ).

One of the reasons that I got onto this topic is because there are some players who feel that a person cannot enjoy Chess unless the person is improving all of the time ( sort of like a matter of life and death ). Of course a person who is " seriously " on their way to achieving the FM, IM and GM levels needs to study tirelessly, however average players do often have to take the time to earn a living ( etc etc etc ).

Perhaps another point concerns the manner of how the studying is done. Those of us who remember the days before the internet ( no internet ? Impossible !!! ) had to study with Chess books and magazines. Of course today with Computer Chess games and the internet the sky is the limit for access to Chess training. Then one also comes to the question of Chess coaches, some of which are no doubt better than others. In a recent edition of Chess Life I saw a feature on the 2012 President's Cup ( for the Final Four of USA Collegiate Chess ). The item that caught my interest was the fact that the head coach for the winning team ( Texas Tech ) was Susan Polgar. Of course I am not familiar with Susan Polgar's coaching & teaching styles however having one of the top Female Chess Players of all-time as head-coach would be considered as being a tremendous benefit I'm sure.

Honestly I prefer to study, not so that I can win when I play.. But just because I prefer the study..  I'm not all that into competition, if I win or lose it's all the same to me, but people can get so worked up over it.. I dread nearly every game with someone I don't know for that very reason..  But understanding why things work the way they do is fun.

I even like the monotonous endgame study and opening memorization.. I think it's calming, like vegging in front of the TV.. Just going through the motions.  I guess I'm actually pretty boring, but I'm okay with that.. :P

I would say that I prefer playing chess. But studying is also important too.

Playing chess is more fun for me than studying chess outside of playing.  Unfortunately, that attitude, preferring play, impacts my win/loss ratio, because I often don't do a good job of studying all aspects of the games I am playing.