If you don't like Chess, why the hell are you even playing it?? Stupidest thing I ever heard.
@ChessClass2Learn said in #1:
> Whats the point of it all. To the strong players that play otb what keeps you motivated and feel motivation to lock in.
Sorry, I am not a strong player, but I feel the same about the thing I am best at. And my solution is to change the environment, meet people socially, relax. Sooner or later, the urge is going to come back. And if it doesn't, then no biggie, you just have a pleasant relaxed life.
Most of the time the things that pull us back are triggers around us that we're not even aware of. Change your location, your habits, your group, and suddenly you become a different person who can clearly look behind and see what the problems were and find solutions. You can't understand the box unless you're out of it.
Chess has been around way before ratings existed. Ask your self why that is?
Chess has thrived for centuries because it engages players in problem-solving, critical thinking, and personal growth. Ratings should remain secondary to the game’s intrinsic appeal. Focusing solely on ratings undermines the true joy and purpose of playing, as the real motivation lies in mastering strategies, enjoying the challenge, and outsmarting opponents.
You can outsmart your opponent even without perfect play. You don't even need to win to enjoy playing with a friend. Stop memorizing and putting too much effort in the game. Experiment, try something new. Take a break from your old rating mind-set and learn to have fun with some casual chess games.
its just a game, have fun, dont care about rating :)
With nothing but kindness behind my intent, I have to politely and respectfully disagree with an idea that seems evident above.
It was written above that "... you do not really create things of value in chess (outside of the pleasure of playing)...." And, in a different post above, it was claimed that chess has "no benefit to society."
I beg, although I don't plead, to differ. A beautiful chess game; a startling combination; a novel positional insight leading to the modification of an entire opening line: these very much ARE "of value," as is the pure enjoyment and interest furnished by the play (as WAS properly admitted above).
Wait, what? How can I make that bold claim?
Well -- those things are of every bit as much abstract "value" and "benefit" as a novel or an excellent painting, or a song about, say, a bad boyfriend or a pickup truck -- or even a song of transcendent beauty, written by a long-deceased German master composer (although the "market value" of such traditional art may surpass that of chess innovations, at least for SOME -- not necessarily all -- chess writers).
Chess is science and sport -- and also art. Scoff at that as some might, it is still true.
And even if it were merely sport it would certainly not lack value or benefit, any more than any sport does -- including curling and water polo. Sport is valuable and beneficial. Does a fine football match lack value? Not unless the sponsors and fans who lavish their resources upon it are dullards -- which they are quite unlikely, in most cases, to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a further point for discussion and perhaps more useful pondering: it is suggested not to "care" about "rating." Although I find that suggestion likely to be wishful thinking for most, it does give us something to think about.
I think nearly every chess player cares about rating. That's perfectly human. It's like caring about physical beauty or the attainment of credentials. Pretending otherwise has always seemed suspicious to me.
On the other hand -- one can decide, if not to dismiss caring entirely, to simply not worry TOO MUCH about it.
What do I mean by that? One can switch from dwelling upon RATING goals to dwelling upon PROCESS goals.
What's a process goal? Well, as I use the term (and I don't think I originated it), I mean making goals that don't look for a particular end result, but rather look for a certain quantifiable EFFORT meant (hoped) to lead to a better end result.
In other words, instead of making as a goal "being a master" by "age 25," one might make goals of: a) studying the endgame 3 measured hours this week and b) learning and practicing against the computer one new line of the queen's gambit declined this week, and c) solving 50 more previously unseen tactical puzzles this week. Or some such.
I just made those up off the top of my head, and I'm sure we can each come up with better "process goals" that will serve our particular needs. But the point is -- instead of dwelling on "rating" (the result), we can be content to take satisfaction from "doing the work" that we determine to help us improve.
That way, we are making and living with our own goals -- as determined, principled humans -- without getting too wrapped up in RESULTS.
I can easily be wrong, and I don't pretend to be an expert, but I think the satisfaction of sticking to measurable, definite, time-limited (as in week by week, or even month by month) "process goals" is helpful and less easily destroyed by a few bad results than a "result-oriented" goal would be.
I've long felt that sticking with process goals is doable and satisfying and -- if anything can -- is as likely to lead to progress as stressing out over every win or setback.
We can't avoid losing some chess games. But we have much more control (although not perfect control) over whether we meet the process goals we set for ourselves -- regardless of whether we won or lost in a given day or at a particular tournament. I can lose and STILL meet my study goals -- and take worthwhile satisfaction in that.
And process goals can be useful for much more than working on chess -- indeed, it's time for me to go do some dishes, which helps toward the result of a happy, well-ordered life.
As a Mr. Miyagi might say: wax on, wax off.
Ever heard the expression, "Who's counting?"
Ratings can sometimes take the fun out of the game if you're constantly worried about them, like the OP seems to be. Focusing too much on counting can become demotivating, especially when you hit a plateau. But if you win 50% of your games, you should be able to say, "I did well enough."
Everyone will hit a plateau sooner or later, and it's not your fault. One size doesn’t fit all, and not everyone is the same. So, the players who shame you for your rating? They should be shadow-banned.
@Toscani said in #23:
> Chess has been around way before ratings existed. Ask your self why that is?
>
> Chess has thrived for centuries because it engages players in problem-solving, critical thinking, and personal growth. Ratings should remain secondary to the game’s intrinsic appeal. Focusing solely on ratings undermines the true joy and purpose of playing, as the real motivation lies in mastering strategies, enjoying the challenge, and outsmarting opponents.
>
> You can outsmart your opponent even without perfect play. You don't even need to win to enjoy playing with a friend. Stop memorizing and putting too much effort in the game. Experiment, try something new. Take a break from your old rating mind-set and learn to have fun with some casual chess games.
Easy for you to say because you have other things your good at other than chess. I suck at everthing but chess.
For the past 3 months I have not been studying any chess at all I keep hating myself for that because my grades are bad, I have no other skill in life. If i am not good at chess I will be a despressed adult when I am a adult because I will be considered stupid and good for nothing
If I cant get fm before I am 18-19 when I am adult I will be broke and cant even teach chess for money and soon be homeless
@M_Durk said in #21:
> If you don't like Chess, why the hell are you even playing it?? Stupidest thing I ever heard.
Chess is my only way out of working at mcdonalds thats why even tho I hate it I still play many tournaments
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.