I play chess... Because I like it. I work a 40+ hour week and And going to school for computer science. Organize your priorities and your ok with anything. I quit chess all the time during finals, and notify my correspondance opponents accordingly.My chess friend; if you no longer like chess, by all means quit. But if you like it but find it addicting and a problem with other more important areas of your life, just manage and organize. Willpower works wonders.
Why I'm Done With Chess
Sort:
Oct 18, 2010
0
#83
It is obvious chess must not be for you. I have a freiend that likes golf as much as I like chess. I tried golf, even paid for golf lessons, but I ended up feeling toward golf similar to how you feel about chess. However, I sold all of my golf equipment and went on with my life. My questtions are: What is bothering you, manicule, that you feel you need to justify your exit from chess? Why belittle those that enjoy chess as you leave?
I agree. The more brains the better. Can't have enough of them.
uhohspaghettio wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
cberman wrote:
I stand by what I said earlier. Chess is a mental activity, and if you have greater mental resources than someone else, then, all else being equal, you will be better equipped to win.
I don't fully agree. Getting good at chess is a matter of exercise and practice, much like the darts champion comparison I made before. In this case, the brain works just like a muscle in an arm. You train it by a lot of practice and study, and you get better at it no matter what level of intelligence you have (unless you're completely brain-dead).
Then you are factually wrong. All other things being equal the more brains you have the better you will be... ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
Don't bother responding back to this because my opinion of any "retort" you might have to this would be so low that I would curse myself if I mistakenly read it.
All other things being equal, if you have better brains for chess, of course you'll be better at chess.
All other things being equal, if you have the brains for Olympic diving, physics, and origami, your chess play will be... equal :p
"Brains" and "Intelligence" aren't well defined even in scientific circles, it's funny how chess players on this site continually use the terms as if they are.
Being good at chess like art is a talent. Having a talent doesn't mean you're more intelligent in everything.
FirebrandX wrote:
cberman wrote:
I stand by what I said earlier. Chess is a mental activity, and if you have greater mental resources than someone else, then, all else being equal, you will be better equipped to win.
I don't fully agree. Getting good at chess is a matter of exercise and practice, much like the darts champion comparison I made before. In this case, the brain works just like a muscle in an arm. You train it by a lot of practice and study, and you get better at it no matter what level of intelligence you have (unless you're completely brain-dead).
Now there is the exception involved with the still-developing brain. This is where children at the age of about seven are trained to become GMs by the time they are in high school. This has more to do with the unique situation of the brain still developing pathways at a much faster rate than a full-grown adult. The intense study of chess at this age actually causes the brain to adapt and reconfigure itself for optimum chess performance. For an adult trying to master chess, this is very close to impossible to gain the same ability from. Indeed every claim I've investigated of an adult "mastering" chess turns out to be a case of them having been an expert as a child and picking the game back up later. That's just not the same as an adult in their 20's having never played the game before and deciding to become a GM. If they could manage it at all, it would take two to three times longer than a child starting fresh in chess. This is similar to my situation. I took up chess in my late 20's, and now in my late 30's, my performance has only improved to Class A strength. Occasionally I will beat a master, but my skill and knowledge improve at a snail's pace compared to children. I remember in my first tournament, I played a young child and we drew the game. Years later, he had become a full-on master ranked player and I ended up playing him again and he destroyed me. We both had been studying chess the whole time, but he had the benefit of his young brain adapting more quickly than mine. Here again, this had nothing to do with intelligence or whatever you want to call it. He simply had the advantage of a still-developing brain while he studied chess during his youth.
Sure, starting as a child is an great advantage, but it doesn't guarentee you'll become a GM. Plenty of kids learn chess, but most don't become GMs.
sodayodadude wrote:
Uhm, #1? Let me sit down a harvard student and a complete idiot agianst eachother who have never played chess. Who will win? Also, check the IQ's of the world's top 100...you'll see a pattern.
Just for fun, slightly related, an excerpt from an interview with Jan Smeets: Elo 2600+ age ~25
Q: What are chess players particularly good at (excpet for chess)?
Smeets: I guess logical thinking, quickly taking decisions.
(later in the interview)
Q: Is a knowledge of chess useful in everyday life?
Smeets: Obviously not.
Chess is a very specific, limited, skill. Of course certain mental aspects like memory and logic would give an upper hand especially over time, but a "Harvard student" or "intelligent person" doesn't necessarily have gifts in those areas. Chess is a mental game, but to try to argue chess=intelligence... probably means you have a very limited experience with chess 
Top 100 have a high IQ average, maybe... maaaaybe but that doesn't prove a correlation (I think Kasparov, arguably the best ever, had an IQ of 130). There are very intelligent people with high IQs who would not have made it to the top in the world of chess.
heinzie wrote:
I agree. The more brains the better. Can't have enough of them.
that sounds like zombie talk to me.
Seriously, though, anyone can become obsessed with an activity and become a jerk. Chess is just like any other game; it's fun, but it should not be an obsession.
WOW my apoligies for all the flack your catching for showing your honest feelings .
im new to chess,com and yours was the first post i read i havent played
lately 20 years ago i played clubs and tournaments and yes it is addicting very addicting
i hope you made at least one or two friends in the process i agree that alot of tough personalities are out there that are idiots in every walk of life
example from me i like dragracing but i wont go to one track there a lot of nasty highly competitive guys concentrating on winning money iwish them a lot of luck instead i go to another track alot of friendly guys if something goes wrong there is a comradery amongst strangers
or merely good fun when things are going well im paying 20 bucks to have fun meet freindly people talk about getting better same is hard to do with chess ego gets in the way
your post is very interesting to me and should be to alot of people
FirebrandX wrote:
woodshover wrote:
Sure, starting as a child is an great advantage, but it doesn't guarentee you'll become a GM. Plenty of kids learn chess, but most don't become GMs.
The opposite is not true however. You don't see adults my age picking up chess and becoming a GM. It pretty much is a one-way street. Either you start studying as a youth, or you have virtually no shot at becoming a GM. As I said before, the adults I've investigated having become a GM as an adult always had expert chess knowledge as a child. None of them were able to start chess say, at the age of 25 or so, and go on to become a GM.
As for uhohspaghettio's rather childish remark, I won't bother 'cursing' him with a response. I have no idea who he is or what his problem is, but his comment was simply uncalled for. We were having an intelligent debate up to that point where he decided to get personal with it. If I were mod, I'd have deleted his comment and warned him for getting personal instead of keeping it civil.
That's probably true. What post number is childish?
RealityMate wrote:
The emphasis on IQ doesn't mean anything really. It's safe to say that all of the top 100 players in the world are probably brilliantly smart; why does it matter what they got on a test that claims to be able to measure the entire capabilities of the brain with one number?
Maybe slightly above average overall. Probably have easily above average memories or a logically tuned mind... but brilliant? I very seriously doubt it 
Oct 18, 2010
0
#94
if chess was such a good measure of intellegence, wouldn't you have chess problems on an IQ test?
of course, this doesn't solve the matter of whether IQ is actaully a good measure of intellegnce.
I think Chess Mentor is trying to make me puke by giving me king pawn ending lessons over, and over, and over, and over, and OVER, and OVER again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RealityMate wrote:
I'm not saying that chess is a good measure of intelligence. I'll state this more logically: with A being players over 2600 and B being smart people:
I believe that all A are B. This has no correlation between saying that to be B, you must be A, or most people that are B are A.
What I'm saying is that, you can't get to 2600 off of studying and playing a lot of games; you need to be talented to get past 2200 OTB no matter how much you study. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 2600 chess player who was stupid.
Ok, I can agree with this :) Maybe I'm being too picky, it's just the whole chess=intelligence thing doesn't make sense to me.
Saying chess causes people to become unfriendly and callous is like saying eating taco bell causes you to become mexican.
offtherook wrote:
RealityMate wrote:
I'm not saying that chess is a good measure of intelligence. I'll state this more logically: with A being players over 2600 and B being smart people:
I believe that all A are B. This has no correlation between saying that to be B, you must be A, or most people that are B are A.
What I'm saying is that, you can't get to 2600 off of studying and playing a lot of games; you need to be talented to get past 2200 OTB no matter how much you study. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a 2600 chess player who was stupid.
[EDIT] @offtherook: IQ is a terrible measure of intelligence.. you cannot measure the human mind with one number!
I disagree with your claim that the set of highly skilled chess players is a proper subset of the set of intelligent people, on the grounds that it is empirically false. There exist talented chess players with average and below-average intelligence. Now, you seem to be conflating "talent" with "intelligence." Certainly all 2600+ GMs are highly talented—at chess. This does not necessarily mean they are intelligent, any more than you would assume talented athletes must be intelligent. The studies are out there to be read if you like. The data do not agree with you.
And yes, I know IQ is a flawed measurement. But we don't have a better measurement at the moment. In the absence of some sort of flawless measure of that Platonic quality we call "intelligence," IQ must be used as a rough estimate.
But talent in chess, as opposed to athletic talent, is mental in nature. I think a high talent for chess could be thought of as a type of intellectual gift (certainly an isolated one not related to overall intelligence). Like he said, it would be hard to label a 2600 player "stupid" except in the sense that even smart people are stupid in other areas.
Should the discussions here be considered as "cons" for chess per this thread:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pros-and-cons-of-chess
Mr. Minicule ....it is simply "sour grapes".
You could probably not get better in chess even after 3 years. If you want to quit , just do it.
Whether you quit or not chess will exist for a long time and many people will still play the game.
It is simply a sport just like the others.!!!
How did you get to be number 12 of the whole Chess.com site? You don't even have a title!