--- In Chess_General_Discussion@yahoogroups.com, "jimdale827" <jimdale827@...> wrote:
>
> On Chess.
>
> It was once said by a good player that chess, like love and like
> music, has the power to make Man happy.
Yes, that player was Siegbert Tarrasch. The exact quote is:
"Chess, like love, like music, has the power to make men happy."
> True enough, but much more
> can be said about it too :- ) Chess also makes one of the best
> analogies of life itself in many ways, and one can draw many
> similarities and correlations.
>
> But, in the absolute final analysis chess is not about winning it,
> losing or drawing a game, it is about having fun and enjoying the
> experience and the mental exercise. It matters not a damn as to if a
> player is good, bad, or mediocre as a player, what matters is how
> much you enjoyed it, for it is only a game, not real life.
I disagree. Chess is indeed about winning it. It is, after all, a competition. It's not a sharing circle or a group assignment in University. Winning is important and is definitely the goal. If you're simply looking for mental exercise, chess is not for you. You'd be better off reading some good non-fiction books, or joining a math club, or simply doing chess puzzles and problems. A person with that attitude towards the game will invariably perceive all strong chess players to be arrogant and full of themselves, except maybe the ones that are good at hiding their true nature. People like this will get their serotonin boost by the false pride and illusion of a quasi moral superiority that supposedly goes along with not caring about the result. It's a convenient attitude to have when you're a weak player who doesn't win many chess games.
Having said that though, I believe that it is also important to enjoy the entire process. Losing is an inevitable part of that process, and indeed it is often a chess player's losses that can be the most educational experiences. It's easy to pat yourself on the back and overlook inaccuracies and mistakes after a victory, but a lose makes it painfully obvious that something went wrong. These are the times when we're most motivated to do analysis and study afterwards.
After a loss I believe in grace and good sportsmanship. I try to compliment my opponent if he indeed played well. I don't make excuses and don't whine after the game. I also have never refused to do a postmortem, even after losing to a lower rated player. Any tournament player knows how hard this can be to do. I pride myself on my class and etiquette in tournament play, but I also pride myself on my honesty and integrity in being able to say that I am definitely trying to kill my opponent on the chess board with everything I've got, within the rules, and within proper conduct of play (ie; not trying to distract my opponent, etc). My biggest thrill in chess comes from beating my opponent when he is NOT distracted or otherwise playing at less than his full potential. I want him at his very best, and destroy him anyway. I take this approach even with my closest friends. After the game, regardless of the result, we shake hands and go for a beer (usually many beers) and our friendship is unaffected. But during the game it's out and out war. You should be glad not all of your British ancestry shared your effeminate, pacifist attitude. You'd be speaking Deutsch and eating wiener schnitzel if they did.
The topic of why women don't even come close to being able to compete with men in chess (save for Judit who is not actually human, but an advanced alien hybrid from the planet "Attakalot"), even though it is not a game which requires muscular strength, has been discussed a great many times and with differing opinions. My opinion has allot to do with my previous paragraph, in which I describe the thrill I get from destroying my opponent. This is a masculine impulse and comes from our reptilian brain which served our ancestors well when life depended on being able to intelligently hunt and kill wild game, or fight to defend the village. The female brain, by necessity, developed differently. They have their skill set as well, but hunting and killing is not high on the list of priorities for most women. This is an opinion, perhaps expressed with other words, that is shared by many top Super Grandmasters such as Kasparov.
You know what's really hilarious, is how these people who love to repeat, as a mantra "chess is just a game", generally don't have much of a "life" outside of chess to speak of. They have jobs that they don't particularly like, but only tolerate, and they have relationships in which both parties feel as they have compromised. Of course the painfully obvious truth is that this is just a way of trying to feel better about being mediocre and weak. It's just a defense mechanism. To many people chess is much MORE than "just a game". Karpov said that chess is art, science and Sport,all in one. Benjamin Franklin was quoted as saying: "Life is a kind of Chess, with struggle, competition, good and ill events". Are you going to tell me that there was something wrong with the lives of Karpov and Franklin? They, along with most other professional chess players, have accomplished much outside of chess as well. Even if you do only see chess as a game, does this mean you have to somehow mangle sucking at it into some sort of twisted moral superiority? Football is just a game as well, but some people make a living at it, and even those who just enjoy playing at the amateur level, certainly try to help their team win. They don't sit around like a bunch of fairies discussing how nice it is to be grabbing at each other while wearing tights. It's a competitive game. There is nothing evil about competing and being good at something. Being competitive doesn't equate to being a poor loser or being a bad person. Conversely, being weak and incompetent doesn't make you morally superior to anyone. It just makes you weak and incompetent. Learn from your defeats and improve, take up another activity that perhaps you'll be better at, or be content to be a loser, but don't get on some soap box full of bullshit and preach how evil it is to be successful at something and that the winners are supposed to feel bad for being winners.
