PDA

View Full Version : What if you never played chess?



Alan Shore
08-05-2004, 10:52 PM
Have a think, what would your life be like if you had never learned chess? For me it would have been very different.. (probably much more productive, hehe) but I've met so many people and made many great friends from both near and from far-reaching places - it's been a part-time job for teaching it and also introduced me into the many variations of the game.

I often grow tired of it and attempt to play much less but something usually brings me back.. I've quit playing for now but not sure how long it'll last... :hmm:

Trent Parker
08-05-2004, 11:01 PM
There is currently not a day goes by where i do not think about chess. Pity i suck at it though! :lol:

My step-grandfather taught me chess. Although I loved my grandmother, I used to have more fun with my step-grandfather playing chess. He was my sparring partner. It was not long after his death that i decided to play tournaments. Without chess My life would be much more boring than it is now.

JGB
10-05-2004, 04:00 PM
[QUOTE=Bruce Dickinson]Have a think, what would your life be like if you had never learned chess? QUOTE]

It would all be very differnt now, much better for my girlfriend, family, working life, studies etc etc. But the sad truth is that I am addicted to the game and will give it up for nothing.

Trent Parker
10-05-2004, 05:23 PM
[QUOTE=Bruce Dickinson]Have a think, what would your life be like if you had never learned chess? QUOTE]

It would all be very differnt now, much better for my girlfriend, family, working life, studies etc etc. But the sad truth is that I am addicted to the game and will give it up for nothing.

here here

Alan Shore
10-05-2004, 05:54 PM
It would all be very differnt now, much better for my girlfriend, family, working life, studies etc etc. But the sad truth is that I am addicted to the game and will give it up for nothing.

Not necessarily true though, you may have found another addiction rather than chess to replace those things! For me it's probably games, both PC and console (I'm playing Final Fantasy VI again at the moment.. and I don't regret it).


Or even posting on this BB.

Kevin Bonham
10-05-2004, 06:35 PM
Chess is but one of many interests for me and not even one of the most important ones. Had I never learnt it the gap would have been filled by something else. I strongly suspect it would have been some other kind of game or sport.

Alan Shore
10-05-2004, 07:10 PM
Had I never learnt it the gap would have been filled by something else.

Like posting on BB's perhaps... :p

Commentator
11-05-2004, 08:44 AM
Chess. A game for combative people who also like rules to go with their combat.
But more than that; it is a contest for those who like to prepare their tactics and strategy beforehand so that they maximize their chances against the opponent.
Thus, it is a game where the history of grand-master games is highly valued as a source of learning for the player who is keen to improve.
Improvement through study can be measured by positive changes in one's rating. This measurement permits the player to form theories about the most effective and efficient methods of learning to play better chess; because if one's rating does not improve after some particular reading, or course of instruction, then the lack of value of that learning approach is clear.
This is why I like the game.
For those who are 'to combative' then chess provides an outlet to socialise their combativeness within game rules and codes of conduct.

C

PHAT
11-05-2004, 03:12 PM
Chess. A game for combative people who also like rules to go with their combat.
But more than that; it is a contest for those who like to prepare their tactics and strategy beforehand so that they maximize their chances against the opponent.


So, is chess not for people like me, with a play-time to study-time ratio of 99:1. I only like the adrenaline rush OTB. Winning/losing means very little to me because my selfworth does not depend on it. :uhoh: If winning did matter to me, I would study.

Of the millions of people in Australia who play sport every weekend, what proportion are in it to win it? 10%?
And of that 10%, what proportion have the personality to do what it takes to win it? 10% ?
And of that 10% what proportion have the genetic physical/cognitive alelles to win it? 10%?
And what proproportion of that 10% where in the right place at the right time to take up the right game/sport for them? 1 %?

Champions are maybe ten in a million.

My point is, people don't play to win. If true champions are so rare and their goal was to win it, they would all give up. So we might say, players play for the enjoyment of the game.

Commentator
11-05-2004, 03:28 PM
So, is chess not for people like me, with a play-time to study-time ratio of 99:1. I only like the adrenaline rush OTB. Winning/losing means very little to me because my selfworth does not depend on it. :uhoh: If winning did matter to me, I would study.

Of the millions of people in Australia who play sport every weekend, what proportion are in it to win it? 10%?
And of that 10%, what proportion have the personality to do what it takes to win it? 10% ?
And of that 10% what proportion have the genetic physical/cognitive alelles to win it? 10%?
And what proproportion of that 10% where in the right place at the right time to take up the right game/sport for them? 1 %?

Champions are maybe ten in a million.

My point is, people don't play to win. If true champions are so rare and their goal was to win it, they would all give up. So we might say, players play for the enjoyment of the game.

Mr Sweeney
A well written piece by you, showing a lot more attention to detail of sentence construction and spelling accuracy than usual.The topic must have touched your interest.
Unfortunately you have read my "Chess. A game for combative people who also like rules to go with their combat." to mean "Chess. A game only for combative people who also like rules to go with their combat.
I did not use the word 'only' and did not mean to.
Secondly, you seem fixated on refuting something about 'playing to win' and being a 'champion'. These are issues that I did not promote in my text. Instead, I was saying that chess gave one the environment to measure if improvement is taking place personally as a consequence of some training (taken in its widest sense). I contend that even chess-duffers can enjoy improving.

C

JGB
11-05-2004, 03:34 PM
So, is chess not for people like me, with a play-time to study-time ratio of 99:1. I only like the adrenaline rush OTB. Winning/losing means very little to me because my selfworth does not depend on it. :uhoh: If winning did matter to me, I would study.

Of the millions of people in Australia who play sport every weekend, what proportion are in it to win it? 10%?
And of that 10%, what proportion have the personality to do what it takes to win it? 10% ?
And of that 10% what proportion have the genetic physical/cognitive alelles to win it? 10%?
.

Sorry Matthew, but It would be over 90% of sport people who play beacuse the have the chance to win, and winning is a reward in sport. If people were not trying to win, sport would be uncompetitive and boring. I dont play (like I suspect most) only to win, but it one of the reasons.

PHAT
11-05-2004, 03:46 PM
Sorry Matthew, but It would be over 90% of sport people who play beacuse the have the chance to win, and winning is a reward in sport. If people were not trying to win, sport would be uncompetitive and boring. I dont play (like I suspect most) only to win, but it one of the reasons.

If I may clarify my position. There is a big differnce between;
*trying to win and
*being in it to win it.

Agreeded, we all try to win, but only a tiny minority just play so they can win.

JGB
11-05-2004, 05:44 PM
If I may clarify my position. There is a big differnce between;
*trying to win and
*being in it to win it.

Agreeded, we all try to win, but only a tiny minority just play so they can win.


clear ;)

Lemonv1
25-06-2005, 01:48 AM
If I'd never played chess, I reckon that not much would be different in my life, as I've never played seriously, only casually. So, I'd still be doing what I'm doing right now (not right now, I mean in general).

Bereaved
25-06-2005, 04:14 AM
Hi Everybody, ( Hi Dr Nick!!)
We all play chess; Those are the words used throughout the land and possibly throughout the world to some extent. We don't work chess. We may work on our game, we may work at the board, we may work out a combination, we may work out a way to make progress, we may even work our way though some trouble or complications, but to reiterate, we play chess!

I started owing to a school friend,who was my intellectul peer on an academic level, to play within our circle of friends at lunchtimes in I think about age 15-16. I know it sounds odd to not remember exactly, but there you go.

I had learnt the rules of the game in some fashion from my father, and I think had read a book by one Susan Caldwell, simply titled Chess, published by Usborne publishers, and one of what I later discovered were a series of books from this publisher presenting elementary knowledge in a variety of disciplines.

In all truth, my friend at school had learnt the lesson of take the free pieces well and as I unknowingly kept placing them where he could take them, he took each with another 'witty' comment about my intellectual prowess, and at least had the satisfaction ( ??) of the later learnt fact that his planned 4 - move checkmate had to be postponed as the diagonal c4-f7 had a pawn placed on d5 early, which required capturing by the pawn on e4, and who would blame anyone from taking a knight on c6 when one has a pawn on d5?

In any case it was short sharp and brutal and my pride was wounded and i think that stiff necked pride and, to some extent, my shame at being made to seem foolish yet again ( high School is not on my top ten life experiences; probably not even top 100 ), spurred me on to improve. and the rest as they say is all according to theory; hardly Novel is it?

I say this as from the age of about 7 I was set strongly on being a novelist, this being a precise choice of term, because the teller of the story is the star, not the relater of a story ( the reporter ) or the reviewer of the story ( the editor ) or even the mundane compiler of a book ( non-fiction ) , I wanted to be as great as CS Lewis who i must admit has always been a fave, and even more so now that I actually can see the ""Secret"" :D Christian Message within his stories :lol: :lol:

As such, I still love writing, and do so to what some would have considered extremes ;) . The question remains; If not chess then what?

The answer is unknown, the analysis is unclear, and the asking is unnecessary; If I play 1.e4 and they play 1...c5, it is a Sicilian defence; But if I do not play 1.e4, then it could still end up being a Sicilian defence, by transposition...Therefore, as all the people posting here on this thread are fixated by what would i have done if I hadn't played chess, perhaps the word, ever, needs appending, unless you truly believe that your primary manner of contact was so distinct that it would never occur again in another fashion.

Life is a system of interactions of which we have no absolute predictive power or ability.

The other thing you would have been but for chess, is still there latent, perhaps permanently, perhaps not, within all of us.

After all, I heard recently about some guy who was in politics in Russia called Kasparov... Must be the cousin of Kasparov the Chess player...they could hardly be the same man, could they? That would mean that one of the absolute greatest chess players in the world changed careers; and for politics???

Take care all, Macavity VP

antichrist
25-06-2005, 11:45 AM
I could say the exactly same "What if I did not read the Sydney Morning Herald every day of my life?". They are life decisions which we must stand by. Because I achieved a mountain of other stuff that is my luxury.

Aaron Bellette
27-06-2005, 01:52 PM
Because I achieved a mountain of other stuff that is my luxury.
You over-achiever you! ;)

AB