Under 2700 is garbage chess

@Roter_Korsar said in #50:
> Fortunately I do not need to play like a champion to feel happy with chess, I neither I want to play like a champion in future.
>
> I think you are a troll who only wants to check the reactions of people you consider rabble. Unfortunately you are easy to see through.

Cool story bro.

> I couldn't go through life with the low IQ people I see everywhere. Their behavior is atrocious.

some of the happiest people alive have an abnormally low IQ.

for me, the meaning of life is happiness and it's a struggle sometimes to be happy.

if chess was making me unhappy I would stop playing.

if my work was making me unhappy I would get a new job, have I have done that a few times. I had a career break and worked in the construction industry for 6 months. It was the happiest time of my life. A great reset.

If reading forum posts was making me unhappy I would stop reading them.

Very well spoken, @h2b2.

@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #37:
> The *chess* is garbage, the players are not.
>
> I spent a lot of time refuting really stupid openings then I realized when I began studying only games where both players are 2700 that I would naturally acquire the technique to refute the crap.
>
> Some people spend their whole lives developing a really fine understanding of the latvian gambit.
Don't say things that i don't know.
Players are the things that play chess. Stop talking about your Future then it can get messed up.

@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #37:
> The *chess* is garbage, the players are not.

You know what? If you thought that 'chess' is garbage, you wouldn't have spent your time writing on this post.

You wouldn't submit your email and password on lichess.

You wouldn't have 'waste your time' (according to you) playing under 2700 rated chess.

Now tell us, the answer to MY question. @RoundMoundOfUnsound

Also, what do you think? All the Gm's, Garry Kasparov, Magnus Carlsen, Emmanuel Lasker, were born GM's? With 2700 Fide rating already ready for them on fide? They also took years of effort to be what they were/are!

@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #1:
> If either player is under 2700 ignore the game it is meaningless. These games are like playground basketball.

Perhaps you are expecting too much from yourself. If you felt disgusted by your own blunders after analyzing your games with stockfish, then it would be a natural defense mechanism to project your feelings of imperfection towards everyone else, as an unconscious effort to level yourself with them.

But the reality is that any skilled player, who has studied chess for quite some time, and read a few books, can play very well and produce very interesting games, with their own unique style and ideas. What we can't do is perfect calculation. This is for computers. But human creativity, strategy and style are what make chess beautiful. In that aspect, we are much superior to the computers.

Yet, the one thing you need understand and accept is that chess is based on precise calculation, and without that, everything else can fall apart. And this brings up another valuable thing about chess. It gives you an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and accept that you are a human and you'll always be imperfect.

The chess games of whatever level are a piece of gold, but only for those who are able to learn this lesion.

And btw, computer chess is also not perfect, yet. The neural networks are trying to mimic our bran, but they are very inferior. It would take a quantum computer that can solve the chess problem to really reach chess perfection. And still, the computer wouldn't ever be able to display emotions in their games. All it would do is to pick one of the winning lines it knows. Like if it was just checking a endgame tablebase. So it would still be boring to play against them.

I feel like the original post is a joke, considering the OP has his 1899 USCF rating displayed on his profile.