Dodger111 - I think anyone can be good at chess with the right focus and determination..the question is how good one becomes...no doubt you think your great at 1400 - you need to change your "aptitude" or should I say patronising "attitude".
Is chess worth getting good at?
Sort:
zzzzzzzzzzzz....
Dodger111 wrote:
You've played 1400 games and have a rating of 1000, no amount of time and studying will be enough to get good at chess, you don't have the aptitude for it.
Lol, you're so full of crap.. I know somebody who started at 800 rank and literally read 30+ chess books in a 3 year period and downloaded a tactic trainer and is now 2100-2300 (depending on the day). Keep in mind he also would spend months on certain books (following along diligently with a chess board at home) and times where he spent over an HOUR just on 1 tactic.. So.. doing tactics sloppy/random w/o much thought won't make you good at chess either, it takes A LOT of effort..
Please go with your nonsense..
Not to mention you have almost 5k games played and are 1300 rank.. LOL @ talking about who has aptitude for what. lol @ critiquing and judging who can get good at what.. (PS: Our ranks are in the same league, until you hit 1600+)
thegreat_patzer wrote:
I think the OP is thinking of chess all wrong. the questions should BE,
Since I'm obsessively Interested in chess ( I love playing it and thinking about it)- Isn't it IMPORTANT not to be INEPT at it!?
in short, shouldn't people be GOOD at things they LOVE doing?
----
otherwise I'm totally with checkmate on life in general. there's a lot of unrewarding chores i'm expected to obsess on. chess is a charming little board game and tons funner than trying to smack a little white ball in a hole.
If chess is used as an escape from life, then it's useless. It develops one intellectually, increases their logic, but little of it can be actually applied to life, as Kasparov, fortunately, made clear.
There is another kind of logic which chess can't offer...
I play because i enjoy it. I don't plan on making a living off it If I have time, I study because it will make my better and help raise my game to face better opponents.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#27
Queen4QueenEverytime wrote:
Dodger111 wrote:
You've played 1400 games and have a rating of 1000, no amount of time and studying will be enough to get good at chess, you don't have the aptitude for it.
Lol, you're so full of crap.. I know somebody who started at 800 rank and literally read 30+ chess books in a 3 year period and downloaded a tactic trainer and is now 2100-2300 (depending on the day). Keep in mind he also would spend months on certain books (following along diligently with a chess board at home) and times where he spent over an HOUR just on 1 tactic.. So.. doing tactics sloppy/random w/o much thought won't make you good at chess either, it takes A LOT of effort..
Please go with your nonsense..
Not to mention you have almost 5k games played and are 1300 rank.. LOL @ talking about who has aptitude for what. lol @ critiquing and judging who can get good at what.. (PS: Our ranks are in the same league, until you hit 1600+)
i know im a patzer too but i think books are overrated
Tom_Brady_SB49_Champ wrote:
Queen4QueenEverytime wrote:
Dodger111 wrote:
You've played 1400 games and have a rating of 1000, no amount of time and studying will be enough to get good at chess, you don't have the aptitude for it.
Lol, you're so full of crap.. I know somebody who started at 800 rank and literally read 30+ chess books in a 3 year period and downloaded a tactic trainer and is now 2100-2300 (depending on the day). Keep in mind he also would spend months on certain books (following along diligently with a chess board at home) and times where he spent over an HOUR just on 1 tactic.. So.. doing tactics sloppy/random w/o much thought won't make you good at chess either, it takes A LOT of effort..
Please go with your nonsense..
Not to mention you have almost 5k games played and are 1300 rank.. LOL @ talking about who has aptitude for what. lol @ critiquing and judging who can get good at what.. (PS: Our ranks are in the same league, until you hit 1600+)
i know im a patzer too but i think books are overrated
It depends what one does with them: memorization is of little help. Understanding great moves, plans and patterns obviously helps. It's a work of discovery.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#29
The things in life that I prefer are designed to waste time: fishing, playing chess, walking. All have health benefits--mental, physical, emotional.
I guess it depends,I have been 800-900 range(daily chess) from 2013 to 2015.After this,I took a break from playing chess and watch master games ,read chess books, and did tactics.Then,I started playing again and I see a lot of improvement in my chess now with my rating at 1272.Though of course,I only play it as a hobby.
if you're a kid in america, then yes. (attention spans are going so far down the shietter)
Otherwise......
mjm16 wrote:
I guess it depends,I have been 800-900 range(daily chess) from 2013 to 2015.After this,I took a break from playing chess and watch master games ,read chess books, and did tactics.Then,I started playing again and I see a lot of improvement in my chess now with my rating at 1272.Though of course,I only play it as a hobby.
I remember reading "Bobby Fisher Teaches Chess" like 3 years ago, I skimmed through it and I went up 120ish rank, then I stopped there.
After that I downloaded "Logical chess move by move - Irving Chernev" and had bought a chess board and followed along for the first few strategies on my board (took hours because I had to figure out how to read the pieces like qe3 etc). I won several games in a row but then stopped playing for along time. Something tells me that that Irving Chernev book alone will get somebody to 1600, but it will take a lot of diligent following with your own board.
hail satan
oh man! this is just a game to master.u are not going to get anything other tahhn happinesss. It makes our neurons proper formation.
quitting chess made me happy.
Happiness is not dependent on an outside achievement, an outside action. If it were, there would be dependence, attachment to such action, and happiness would be conditional. That is, in the background there would always be the prospect of losing that which produced happiness in the first place, looming with the fear and insecurity such prospect is bound to produce--and so this happiness, containing fear of losing that which produced it in the first place, is not exactly happiness.
True happiness is unconditional.
Troy7915- I respect your logic.
yes. It makes you smarter
Fiveofswords- I have read other posts you have made here, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree with your bleak view of technology. Have you studied Malthus? Before the invention of fertilizer, laborers were doomed to only produce enough food to temporarily increase the population, until the population growth outpaced the growth in food production, and starvation limited the population back to its equilibrium state. Technology is what enables us to improve standards of living with constrained amounts of land and natural resources. The government spies on us, because we fail to demand more transparency from government, not because of improved technology.
because its general chess discussion ? and chess isn't as much of an audience grabber ? and maybe they do ?