The Zen of chess - a delicate balance

On Nov 23rd I posted an article here called Thoughts on Losing. (see pg. 2 of chess posts) I assure all of you here these were not my opinions, but the thoughts of a local player in the NW named Mr. Ang. Our local NW chess coaching author responded with an intelligent, but somewhat spacey response in the January edition on NWC to Mr. Ang's views. I won't bore you with all the details. Mr Dubisch summed up his thoughts with this (paraphrased) "When we only care about winning, we're not playing chess anymore- we're playing a game of dominance, instead, we stay as objective as possible, we solve the problem on the board in front of us"

This all sounds great, but how exactly do we do this?

Mr. Ang's approach seems to be (to quote coach Lombardi) "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing!" While Mr. Dubisch's views state "Whether we're winning or losing we enjoy playing the game" I emailed my response to Mr. Dubisch:

I recently read your response to Nobel Ang's article on losing. You're no doubt a much stronger player than I, and normally would not think of taking issue with your views, however my opinion is the truth of the matter lies somewhere between that
of yours and Mr. Ang's. While it's true Mr. Ang's views tend to be primarily about dominance, I would ask: (to expand on a famous football coaches quote) "If winning isn't important, then why do they keep score? Why bother with ratings? Why do they give out prizes? Why not just agree to a draw before the game starts?" Some of this may seem silly, and I do side with your views that "enjoying playing the game" should be of paramount importance, but I would also humbly suggest that the concept of winning and losing has to be at least a little bit important too.

Enjoying playing the game is of primary importance, no doubt, but GM's Carlsen, Ding, Caruana and others don't undergo hundreds of hours of intense mental and physical training, and fly to distant cities to enter tournaments with large cash prizes, world rankings, and rating points on the line, simply to "enjoy playing the game" they can do that in the comfort of their home's, on their computers, (or a local drinking establishment) nor do any of us pay our hard earned euro's (or dollars) travel to distant tournament sites, and for lodging, food, and entry fees simply to do the same.

Enjoying playing the game / Winning and losing: The Zen of chess - a delicate balance

Thoughts?

Hi Bill,
In recent threads at this forum, it's been noted that there isn't really a right answer to the extent to which one's chess satisfaction should be from winning, the beauty of the game, etc.

I don't know whether you feel that the time you've spent studying tactics wasn't that beneficial because it doesn't seem to be reflected in your recent results. But if you feel that way, I would suggest that it was beneficial, and this will become apparent once you've internalized certain aspects of strategy such as mobilizing your rooks.

It's akin to the tennis player who has been practicing volleys and becomes proficient, but whose serve, return of serve, and ground strokes aren't strong enough to enable the player to win enough points at the net to warrant coming to the net.

@mchill
The flaw in the Dubisch logic, as I see it, is that players are forced to be more objective about the game, as they ascend the ranks. They won't keep winning if they don't.

The balance I use is I laugh about my losses and blunders but I do study and I am constantly improving.

If you're going to do something I believe you should do whatever it takes to be the best you can be.

Everyone's rating goes up and down. You are not as good as your highs or as bad as your lows.

@mchill

Dr. Reiner Knizia (a name well known to many who play strategy games beyond chess) has a rather zen-like observation that I've long admired and agreed with:

"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."

In the games that I play, I *always* play as hard as I can to win, even in more simple games like Yahtzee (!), but I'm more interested in the striving to win than I am in defeating my opponent(s).

For me, as noted in my profile page, it enhances the beauty of the game when everyone is playing to win, bringing out the best in the game itself even as it brings out the best in the players, and that in turns enhances the pure joy of playing games.

@gambiteer said
@mchill

Dr. Reiner Knizia (a name well known to many who play strategy games beyond chess) has a rather zen-like observation that I've long admired and agreed with:

"When playing a game, the goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important, not the winning."

In the games that I play, I *always* play as hard as I can to win, even in more simple games like Yahtze ...[text shortened]... as it brings out the best in the players, and that in turns enhances the pure joy of playing games.

@venda said
I refuse to play games where the result is entirely down to luck,like some of the moronic card games that get wheeled out at xmas for example.

@blood-on-the-tracks said
Oh, come on, Mr Scrooge
I love playing 'snakes and Iadders' with my 4year old granddaughter every week!

Chess is a game. The object is to win. However, if one does not enjoy playing it, regardless of whether they win or lose, I'd advise finding a new pastime.