Why I will never be a master

After two years of playing OTB I think it's time to stop.  The first years was pleasant enough, learning and having some success.  The second year has also brought more learning but the length of OTB tournaments just aren't meant for people who get distracted.  The last several tournaments, in my section, I do well, I'm winning, and then there's a 50% that I will make some error at the end cosing me .5 or 1 points.  So a 4.5 turns into a 2.5 because of two mental lapses in a 16 hour period.  I think that is too harsh of a mistress for me.

Stay hungry.

Man do I know that feeling. Played a brilliant (by my standards) game against a player rated 400 points above me in the first round of my last OTB tournament. In a complicated line, I missed a forced win but saw a line that gave the option of forcing a draw or going to an endgame up a passed pawn.

I passed on the draw and played on. My knight and my bishop were en prise by his king for a recapture that would leave me up the pawn. I had been assuming he would take the bishop and leave the knight, because otherwise he'd be playing knight + rook vs. bishop + rook in an endgame with pawns on both sides of the board, not something he'd want to do. He'd have strong drawing chances but I'd be playing for the win . Then I was plotting on how to take my rook to the best position possible.

He took the knight instead, which simply meant that I had to move my bishop away from being en prise from his knight before I started battling for rook position. But I'd been so focused on the lines that involved him taking the bishop that I completely forgot to move it. I realized it 10 seconds after my move, played on until he neutralized the passed pawn and resigned. *sigh*

Fortunately, at this level the games that are given to me by a mistake like that even out the ones I give away.

Part of my problem may be that I am not competative externally only internally.  Being generally outplayed doesn't bother me, screwing up does and yet I keep doing it.  Like I said losing focus twice in 16 hours isn't something I may be able to avoid.  There's a lot of crud going on up there

Do you actually have to play for 16 hours straight, without a break?

I wouldn't give up so quickly. Try to find ways to train your mental discipline. Develop a pre-move checklist that keeps you from blundering. Be willing to walk away from the board if need be.

One day is three rounds, average game close to three hours for me.

Second day is usually two more.  It's typically 8-10 hours day one and 6 hours day two.  But I've had all three games in a day go to 4 hours.

 I doubt if I could hack that myself. All of my playing experience is on this site, and I'll probably never see the default 1200 rating again.

I used to ruthlessly attack without almost any regard to what my oppoent may be planning.  Just zone in on f2 or f7 and get as many pieces there as fast as possible.  Win or lose that greatly cuts down on the length of games and also tends to be quite entertaining.  But a lot of people don't consider that proper chess. 

 A) Who gives a rat's behind what a lot of people consider proper?  Unless your goal is to contest for the world title, playing in the way that best entertains you ought to be your first, last, and only consideration.  For some people, that's synonymous with the way that helps them to improve the most.  For others, it's the way that leads to the most spectacular, bloodthirsty, attacking contests possible.  Follow your muse.

B) If chess has hit the point where it isn't absolutely, 100%, the thing you could be doing that gives you the most pleasure, punt it immediately and move on to greener pastures.  Life's too short.  Never do anything that doesn't enrich your life, unless you have some important reason to stick it out.  And let's face it, you're sure as hell not going to hurt any loved ones or shirk any responsibilities by giving chess up.

 But it just might break poor little chess's heart.

Puggle,

You are correct that one should strive to get the most joy out of one's diversions.  Part of me does like to study and understand strategic concepts, but playing long game after long game is not so much fun.  Maybe I should focus on assessing the value of dynamic piece play versus all other strategic measures (seek and destroy).  Tournaments have been stressing me out more than being fun, mostly because I'm always worried about remembering the things I'm supposed to learn.

I have zero interest in checkers :-)

Here's my favorite game from the last tourney.  I like to chase the early bishop sorties, I like the abnormal pawn structure, and I like the various combinations on the exchanges leading to the endgame.  This type of endgame was pretty cool as well, considering it was a pretty standard set-up after a less standard opening and middle game. 

What's wrong with checkers?

There's nothing wrong with checker or the rubik's cube.  But both create exactly zero interest for me

If you don't enjoy playing repeated long games, then yeah, tournament chess (at least standard tournament chess) isn't your deal. No biggie, have fun in the formats you enjoy.

Oddly enough, I've recently begun to believe for the first time that maybe, just maybe I have a shot at making low-level master someday. But the ability to take chess seriously and maintain that a high level of commitment for many years is certainly a major separator between those who make it and those who don't.

At my level most of my opponents tend to be teenagers and they seem to have an easier time playing endlessly.  Heck they play between and after rounds.

To make the lowest level of master, you have to be in the top 3% of all tournament players. Given how many tournament players don't study seriously, I think it's possible to say that a decent percentage of people who could make it don't because they don't put in the years of effort required.

Once you start getting up to the higher levels of master, I'd be more inclined to agree that few have even the basic aptitudes required.

Studying chess is most likely a waste of time for most people, unless they just want to piddle around with it for the heck of it. I read that only about 5% of rated players ever make master. It takes chess talent. If you don't truly enjoy playing, and studying, you most likely won't ever become one.  I guess you have to really LOVE chess to put in all the work. I know I certainly don't, and won't. 

Why not?  Ability to be a GM I can understand, but to make FIDE 2200?  If you love chess enough it should be possible at least over a ten year time frame no?  Unless you suffer from sporadic concentration lapses :)

Although there are several strong club guys who peaked just shy of 2200 and they are definitely obsessed.