In response to a recent lambasting by trolls, I thought I'd attempt to start a more productive topic, inviting everyone to expand upon their thoughts on the game, since I actually think everyone's opinion on the subject is quite valid and adds to the depth of our community (contrary to popular belief misconstrued from my specific answer to a specific set of questions regarding some pretty high aspirations).
For me, I'm a hobbyist. I take the game seriously enough to desire to improve, so I try to play as often as I can and spend some time studying openings or tactics here and there (which has allowed me some perspective in analyzing others' games somewhat accurately even if I can't seem to do the same in my own sometimes). I also tend to spend some time in analysis, particularly post-game analysis with players who are more social like that and willing to sit through a post-mortem and discuss where we each felt the other went right and where they went wrong.
tl;dr -- Ultimately for me, chess is a social interaction. I don't like spending long hours at a board by myself as I did in my youth, I much prefer to engage people with it, discuss the game, discuss events, etc. I enjoy the game, I play for fun, and while I wish to improve I doubt I'll reach IM before 80 since I don't dedicate enough time to the game.
What about you? What's your outlook on the game? Is it 'just a game' for you? A hobby? A sport that you take pretty seriously? Should it be in the Olympics? Let's share!
I play game for the sake of meeting people of the same mentality of me. To me chess is a social game. To meet others with similar interests. Isn't WCC and Candidates' tourney already the "worldwide" chess tourneys. I try to take it seriously and try to improve but I never succeed.
old board game ruled by computers which i only keep playing out of addiction.
don't get me wrong, if you "love the game" then by all means go ahead and pursue your chess aspirations. but i would rather have these thousands of hours of my life back (plus the thousands i'm still going to spend in the future)
static_shadow you pointed out some very interesting and true facts or ideas that I share mostly. I take it quite seriously as well, because of course when you do something, no matter what it is, you want to be good at it. Chess is not an exception. I started some maybe 2 months ago so that my brain wont fade into laziness and so on. I think its noble and beautiful game, and I thought those who play it, are also somehow noble (i.e. their behaviour is on a higher level) and I found out very quickly most people are pretty arrogant, they cant lose, they cant admit losing position. When I lose, I am annoyed, but not about the opponent. First you have to look at yourself, where did you make mistakes, what could you do better. ... Social aspect of chess is for me more likely a bonus, I am not much into socializing, but sometimes I meet someone, who I appreciate to play with again and again. ... By the way yes, I think it should be in the Olympics, as Olympic sporter should not train just his body, but also spirit and intelligence. And for people who understand at least a little bit chess, it would be very exciting, to seek for the best moves live with GMs in their heads.
GREETINGS: Static, bbyd, & the entire diverse lichess 'community',
For myself, chess if first and foremost a tool for friendship and interaction. I started a game w/ bbyd a short time ago because I was already familiar with his wit & wisdom... I got a good laugh and a BIG uplift because of our good natured chat. My only disappointment was that I played so badly it wasn't even a game after the FIFTH move; however, I wasn't damned for all time... we will meet again and 'he' will have to work harder for my points (lol)
Do you play chess while sitting on your huge balls ?? -- or just one large exercise ball (good for the back) ? --- after the 'potential rating' thread some respite was warranted; you recover quickly.
For me, chess is a social activity. The game is dead, and I'm not skilled enough to make it to the top in a discipline which is dead. I've wasted many, many years on the game, but I've met many, many interesting people over these years, from geniuses in the pure sense of the word with a 1300 rating to the oddest and vilest of GMs. The latter is what is of intrinsic value to me. That's why I still visit chess tournaments. I'll remember those peope and my interactions with them forever. I do not care much for the game anymore, I basically go through the motions.
To repeat myself, what is of value is the human aspect of the game. Playing blitz en plain air or at the uni cafeteria, with nothing at stake, surrounded by people who emotionally respond to bad, good and interesting moves, amicably taunting your opponent, is what chess is all about. But that was during my teens, when the game was still quite alive. Even the idea of putting chess in the Olympics makes me cringe. It's the most preposterous of proposals I've ever heard.
The Olympics thing was a joke. I remember there being talk of it once upon a dream ago, but that was before computer domination of the game.
One could even argue for chess being detrimental to the Olympic Games. Chess is silence. The Olympics are a spectacle. Sports is a physical and an emotional activity. It's the direct interaction between athlete and audience. This is the nature of sports. Athletes are encouraged by their audience, their fans, and their fans are emotionally involved with their athletes. The athlete is a mystical, godlike creature to them, freed from the boundaries of human mediocrity and the embodiment of hope in dark times.
In chess there is no such thing. It has nothing to do with sports, because it is not a sport. Desperate attempts to give a swing to the image of the game, by introducing chessboxing and all that crap, is completely ridiculous and insulting to the game. Chess, in a tournament setting, is a purely intellectual endeavour between two players. The players cannot be disturbed, for it would have a disastrous effect to the quality of their play, and their bank account. There is no audience in a game of chess. Therefore, the nature of the chess game does not allow for it to be a sport. Contrarily, of course, the Olympic athlete will perform better due to interaction with his audience. Here lies the dichotomy between the Olympian and the chess player.
The chess game only comes to life in post mortems when the engines are turned off and the audience becomes an active element of the game. This, of course, barely ever happens at the highest level. The professional chess player is indifferent to his audience, because it does not exist. Consequently, the spectator cannot commit itself to the chess player, because he cannot be acknowledged. Who would watch chess in the Olympics except for chess players? Nobody, because of the absolute distance between chess player and audience.
/Incoherent rant.
To their bank accounts? From history I know only 2 chess players, who actually were only chess players and didnt have any other job. And they also said, that they dont do that much really. Correct me if I am wrong, or if there is some "new" info which I had not heard of.
@ static_shadow
I don't see why you have to continue to insult me in another thread if you were actually "done responding" on the matter. I didn't come here to "troll" you by the way. I was just browsing through the threads when suddenly I see you attacking me again.
And to be on topic, chess is just a game I play for fun, though I can't say losing is much fun.