Which is more Fun? Playing Chess or Studying Chess

Like all endeavors that involves both intellect and psyche, the purpose of playing is studying.  Playing chess should be fun, in spite of the strenuous nature of the constant forward-thinking, the true nature of the game.  To use chess to "demolish the other mans ego" is not healthy and very disappointing coming from an intellectual like Bobby Fischer. I was flattered recently when someone challenged me for a game.

Then I realized the challenge was done in anger because of my views on certain topic.  This is not a healthy chalenge or a healthy friendship and the game would probably be added stress that neither one deserves or needs.

Chess, game and study, is what you make of it.  I chose to keep it enjoyable.  I still find very thrilling when I come up with a new good idea, in chess or life.  Studying chess is full of joy since that where you find those gems of moves. The game played is where you test those newly found original and good ideas, there is the stress of anticipation here.

Have a great day everybody.

Good points. 

This crushing the opponent's ego...not only did Bobby say that but so did Magnus. But these guys were/are the best in the chess world. I forgive them on that basis.

I AGREE WITH E4NF3 IF YOU DONT TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY AND LOSE A FEW GAMES YOU WILL NEVER MAKE IT

Just a thought...

Like all endeavors that involves both intellect and psyche, the purpose of playing is studying.

I would have thought it's the other way around...the purpose of studying is for better playing.

If study does not precede play, play will not improve.  Study, particular of how to produce checkmate, improves play and enjoyment.  A better statment is:  The application of study to play is the greatest pleasure.

Nobody has both the time or intellect to "re-invent the wheel" regardig all theory.  And by the way, Bobby Fischer was not an intellectual.  With regard to chess, he stood on the shoulders of giants such as Nimzovich, Capablanca, Alekine, and the entire Soviet School of chess.  He was a chess playing machine who knew very little about philosophy, psychology, mathematics, science, or girls.  Mono-maniacs like Bobby have their identity so wrapped up in chess, their feelings of self-worth depends on winning.  Players who boast when they win or let their clock run out instead of simply and politely resigning a lost game reveal what is a childish and immature personality.  

Good points.

I prefer studying over playing, to be honest. I am a tactical puzzle who loves old-school puzzle books and hates 'tactic trainers' with definitive ratings. But that doesn't mean I'm not a good OTB player. In fact, I argue that in-depth study with such books has elevated my tactical game. 

I digress, but studying to get better then doing well OTB makes me feel like I've accomplished something greater than if I were to only play. 

Thank you for kind words, e4Nf3.

The topic is basic.  Of the good players I have known, all told me the same thing.  At a certain level, it is not only about finding the best move.  It is just as much about knowing yourself:  How do you play under pressure?  Are you stronger in opoenings, gambits, open or closed middle-games, end games with or without pawns' with or without rooks and minor pieces?  And deep questions, like:  "Are you into it?"  I think we have all played chess when were were apathethic about winning or just were moving mechanically.  That's bad.  When you play, want to play and bring it with every bit of knowledge and concentration you have.  The player who is playing just to pass time might as well be playing solitaire.

When I start playing on auto pilot, I always come to the realization that I have been wading in shark infested waters, walking on egg shells in a minefield or going through a gauntlet of razor blades.

Of course, this prognosis only comes after the loss.

For me;

Play chess (with a friend)  > Study chess > Play chess

Well, I've started playing more and studying a little less.

What the hay...life is too short.

Playing definitely. Studying chess takes second place for me.

Improvement comes with playing the game.

Chess_guy72

It all to depends on with whom, I should think.

Surely, as  you exemplify...you are joking?

My answer to paulgottlieb:  Mate.

Playing and WINNING at chess is the most fun.  Studying chess is next, then comes playing and losing.  

LaoTzu....did you write the ICHING?  Losing is not fun!  The fun happens when the opponent is totally demolished with a crushed ego and quits playing forever....NO NO NO...that's not right....the fun is in playing and getting better.  Perhaps the fun is using your mind to imagine, calculate, and socialize.

ChazR, you are correct.  Ive just been on an extreme losing streak lately.  Still fun, but no comparison to winning or reading/studying chess books.  :)

HA!  You have a sense of humor!   I like that!

This has been my experience:  Too much study kills the fun. Analysis is necessary, but too much work.  Work is the opposite of fun.  So, isn't it a good idea to get enought study, analysis, and knowledge, to play without doing so much work?  On the other hand, a Grand Master told me yesterday:  "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" (Thomas Edison).  In other words, BALANCE.  What ever feels right for you.  Some people need 100% perspiration.  Masters need less, when playing chess.

"1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" (Thomas Edison).

I go with this.

All the worthwhile accomplishments in my life came through goal setting and hard work. I see so many people in life who believe "play first" and then worry about work. They've got it backwards. That's the loser's philosophy.

If you want to talk about grand masters at work, examine the example of Bobby Fischer. He had great inspiration. But he worked harder than most people can imagine to get there. He was ALWAYS studying to improve.