for me it was when i got to about 1500 when i really started to understand how bad i actually am. now there seems to be little point in playing unless i actually try to study the game a little in order to imporve... but after that i'll still be terrible at the game compared to the 'good' players, so whats the point?
Originally posted by trev33 for me it was when i got to about 1500 when i really started to understand how bad i actually am. now there seems to be little point in playing unless i actually try to study the game a little in order to imporve... but after that i'll still be terrible at the game compared to the 'good' players, so whats the point?
For those of us who slug it out in the club trenches, knowing that you stink, but being able to appreciate great chess is what makes it worthwhile.
Most people who move a chess piece will never truly comprehend just how awesome Kasparov, Fischer, Morphy, Capablanca really are- if you can get a little of that, then your time has not been wasted.
On another note, Brei made the best comment ever (wow)
On another note, 1500 is actually pretty damn good. You can honestly tell yourself that you're better than 99.9% of people on earth. 1500 is the point where you'll have trouble finding friends to play with you, because they know you'll win every time. If I realized something, it was around 1700. I realized that I'd probably be a doctor or something useful right now if I would have studied for it as hard as I've studied for chess.
Originally posted by trev33 for me it was when i got to about 1500 when i really started to understand how bad i actually am. now there seems to be little point in playing unless i actually try to study the game a little in order to imporve... but after that i'll still be terrible at the game compared to the 'good' players, so whats the point?
the point is that we can still enjoy chess at our level and within the sphere of our
understanding and as we climb the chess mountain gradually we get to see more of
the panorama. Mostly i see that people reach a plateau within their ability, whether
they are a good player or not.
Originally posted by trev33 for me it was when i got to about 1500 when i really started to understand how bad i actually am. now there seems to be little point in playing unless i actually try to study the game a little in order to imporve... but after that i'll still be terrible at the game compared to the 'good' players, so whats the point?
Why keep studying?
Well, for one thing, I appreciate the beauty of chess a lot more than when I was younger. I understand so much more than I used to.
Another reason is that parts of my game seem to go downhill with age. I'm getting lazy analyzing things and seem to have a lot worse tactical blindness than ever. If I didn't learn something new, I wouldn't just be treading water, I'd be slowly sinking.
Well, for one thing, I appreciate the beauty of chess a lot more than when I was younger. I understand so much more than I used to.
Another reason is that parts of my game seem to go downhill with age. I'm getting lazy analyzing things and seem to have a lot worse tactical blindness than ever. If I didn't learn something new, I wouldn't just be treading water, I'd be slowly sinking.
I read annotated games the way someone else might read a short story or a poem. I read annotated game-based opening books just for the games, even when I have no plan at all to ever play the opening in question.
I epecially love best game collections, because it allows you to get into the mind of the player and get a feel for that person's style and approach to the game. In some cases you also get to see the evolution of their games as they mature.
It's just fun for me, so I have no need for accomplishment or validation from it. I still play to win when I move the pieces, but it's definitely not the defining feature for me, or I would have quit a long time ago!
When I hit the low 1800s after ten years of study and tournament play, thought I was pretty good, then I played a bunch of games with someone rated 2200+ and he crushed me like I was a child that just learned the moves. I lost all interest in serious chess after that.
If you want to give up because you start losing, you aren't a player.
A loss in a game is a long term win for your game if you think about it. I'm a relative beginner and the reason I can win the occasional game OTB is that when I go to the club, I find the strongest player I can find and I play him. I'll get my ass beat for months on end, but by the time I'm done studying that game I know the exact reason why I lost. Every time I've done this I've eventually been able to beat that guy after a while.
It's gotten so bad that arsholes at the club will only play me in 10-15 min games so I can't take notes.
But when you if discover why you really suck at chess, and work on the problem, you get stronger.
15 Apr '11 22:37
when did you first discover that you really suck at chess?
Back to Top